cjboffoli

As both a collector of fine art photographs, and a photographer who is represented by fine art galleries, signatures and titles are ALWAYS in pencil.

Great question. I'd love to have my very first 35mm camera back. It was a fixed focus point-and-shoot Canon Snappy with graphics from the 1984 Olympics. My (extremely parsimonious) father must have found it in a closeout bin in December of '84 so he decided on it for a birthday gift for me. I shot many hundreds of bad pictures with that camera until I upgraded to a Minolta a few years later. But those cheesy images were the foundation of a lifetime of images to come and (something I would never have imagined) a full time career as a fine art, commercial and editorial photographer. That Snappy is what started it all for me and I'd love to have it back.

Pinterest is a unique business model. I discussed it with my attorney and the posts there a legally considered the images of the posting members. If you send Pinterest a take-down notice, they'll honor it immediately, but they've been tested in court and found not responsible as the infringer. You probably can't find an attorney to sue them and your likelihood of prevailing is slim.

Actually, it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that gives Pinterest Safeharbor from prosecution. They are not responsible for the infringement of their users so long as they remove those infringements (in a timely manner) when they are reported to them. The thing is, if they don't take them down or miss some of them they can be used for copyright infringement. I should know...I've sued them.

I sell my work around the world and as such I find it convenient to user trusted production houses in various places. In the UK I've had good experienced with both Genesis Imaging and Spectrum. Alternately, Whitewall does very high quality work (in Germany) and ships at very reasonable rates to countries around the world. PS: In some countries, fine art is exempt from import taxes. So you might do a bit of research on H.M. Customs website to verify.

Having read through the above this appears a general mix of good, bad and odd information. (PS: tommarcus might be well served to learn the difference between 'your' and 'you're' before dispensing further legal advice.)

 

As a photojournalist working in the US, my understanding is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. So you are allowed to photograph people, places and things on public property. It also is actually lawful to photograph private spaces that can be seen from a public place (eg. into a private yard or even through a window into a private space that can be freely seen from a public sidewalk or road). Of course, there are gray areas with nuances and exceptions. Some of those things might fall under federal law (copyrights, trademarks, likeness, right of publicity, etc.) some might be local (peeping Tom laws). For instance, you might be within your rights to photograph Julia Roberts on a sidewalk in NYC but you might not have the right to put her face on merchandise and begin selling it. You cannot stick your camera up a woman's skirt in a public place. And while it might be totally legal for you to go to a park and photograph random children, for instance, this might make people very uncomfortable and stir trouble. So you should always use your best judgment. Of course in the USA one can be sued for anything, regardless of whether the plaintiff has the law on their side or not. But one also shouldn't conspire with their own fear and worry about the legality of everything.

 

If you plan to commercialize your work in any way, say, offering images shot in public places to stock agencies, you might need releases for people who appear in the images. There has also been case law for situations in which a photographer has gotten into trouble selling prints of pictures they made of public artworks.

 

Privately owned spaces are, of course, a different matter. And that includes spaces that appear to be public (like the outdoor areas of Rockefeller Center, for instance). Or maybe a shopping center or mall. There some exceptions in this area too. For instance, some local laws provide additional access to journalists to make images and video in private places when first responders are on the scene as there is a public interest in what is happening. Many years back I was covering a fire on private property and the private security tried to have me removed. But as long as the police and/or fire department are present I had a right to be there as an accredited journalist. That doesn't mean that I haven't been threatened, intimidated, screamed at by all manner of people: business owners, victims or perpetrators of crime, first responders, etc. In 2020 Americans are hyper aware of and uneasy about cameras. Cameras can be very powerful.

 

In my work as an independent film producer, there were times when it would have been impractical to get releases from everyone who appeared in our shot...say at a restaurant or winery where we might be filming. In those cases we'd put signs up – in conspicuous places – at all of the entrances, which warned people that filming was going on there and that by entering the area they gave their consent to be filmed. So there may be other mechanisms that might unburden you from having to get releases for everyone.

 

Lastly, never hesitate to seek legal advice from a local attorney who is better equipped to advise you on your legal rights and responsibilities as it relates to the kind of photography that you want to do.

You can get it through photo.net and also through PPA for pretty good rates.

 

I had a membership with PPA for a couple of years but had to cancel it as they were too aggressive in their marketing (and selling my information to third parties) despite my repeated requests for them to not do that. One shouldn't have to ask five times not be treated like a commodity. In the end it just was not worth it for me.

My New York gallery (Winston Wachter Fine Art) recommended Baboo a few years back and I've used them until recently when one of their acrylic-dibond photographs spontaneously began to fall apart. How they've responded has been disappointing in the extreme. Though they pretended to be concerned in the beginning and said they wanted to go look at the piece, after they did that they disappeared. They stopped returning calls to my gallery and have not responded to my attempts to contact them directly. I now feel like a fool for giving them years of business that they clearly don't value. Even more troubling is that they seem to clearly be propping up their online ratings (in the wake of honest reviews I have posted about this experience) with reviews that are shills. I no longer think that the owners of Baboo are professional nor the "experts" they claim to be. I wanted to post about my experience here to be sure that other know about it so they can make their own decisions if they want to deal with a tremendous hassle if anything goes wrong with their order, which is usually when the true quality of a business is revealed.

<p>Hi Dylan. I just wanted to chime in as I'm also an emerging fine art photographer with work that is currently represented by galleries in five countries. I'd definitely recommend that you do your research. Try to find galleries that have an aesthetic and curatorial eye that matches your work. Also follow their rules on submissions. Many gallery sites will include on their websites who to contact with portfolio submissions and whether or not they are accepting them.<br />.<br /> Be sure to REALLY edit your images down to the very best. If it is hard for you to be objective about your own work, ask qualified people you trust to tell you the truth. And take care to present prints to the galleries in a professional manner (highest quality prints, high quality box or binder, etc.). Some of my galleries decided to represent my work by looking at large (24x36") handling prints. It might help if you make some decisions in advance about your sizes, editions and substrates (eg. Lambda prints, pigment ink prints, prints mounted on archival gatorboard, acrylic/dibond mounting, etc.). Galleries often want different things and the process can be iterative. They can also tell you what works best for their individual market. If you're new to the process, just tell them. A good gallery will work with you to help you to put your best foot forward. You should also have some idea on pricing. Galleries will help you to fine tune that too but you really need to start with a figure in mind and looking at comparable work already represented by the gallery in question will help. It may good idea to do some work on first finding a lab or production house that you can trust to provide reliable quality and service. That way you'll have a better idea of what your production costs will be. Edition sizes will be another conversation you'll need to have with the gallery once they agree to represent your work. That's also that is something easy to determine by looking at how other artists are editioning their pieces.<br /> .<br /> I've had really great luck with finding galleries that are extremely professional in their business practices and enthusiastic about my work. But I know other photographers who have some major horror stories. It is always best to be very meticulous about your records. Be sure that any prints sent to a gallery are accompanied by an inventory form so that the gallery knows that you know what work of yours they have in their hands. It is also good on that form to have them sign off on the condition of the prints they are accepting so that if you get anything back with a half moon or other damage the gallery will be responsible. I also keep a meticulous database of each image so that I can track the print editions. When a client places a new order a gallery will often contact me to ask me to print it and they want to know which number it is in the edition. Tracking a carefully maintained database makes it much easier to be able to tell them and to know what to write on the print verso when I am signing and numbering it.<br /> .<br /> All of my galleries take 50% commission. Most often they pay for the framing of any prints and simply pass that cost on to the client directly so I never have to worry about it. Some of my work is sold with an acrylic-dibond mount. And since I underwrite the cost of that upfront, the gallery gives me an additional percentage of the sales of the mounted images to offset those costs. In most cases galleries (who have been around a while) can make recommendations on local labs, production houses and framers that they have done business with. I find that is helpful too.<br>

.<br /> Lastly, don't be discouraged by rejection. The artist Chuck Close has said that photography is the medium in which it is easiest to become technically proficient and the hardest in which to distinguish your own personal style. That has never been more true in our digital age. Some photographers work for decades before they have gallery representation. And such a small percentage succeed relative to the number of people out there who are trying to make a living at it. Just take your time and really focus your work on something meaningful and you're sure to find success. Best to you!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If the kids are on a public play field, would there be any reasonable expectation of privacy? </p>

<p>If the kids are on a public play field, would there be any reasonable expectation of privacy? </p>

<p>Allie: With my galleries, the gallery generally takes care of the framing and passes that cost along to the client. For instance, a 12x18 print (lambda metallic c-print) would have a base price of $650 and the framing costs would be $250 for a final cost to the client of $900. I deliver the prints to the gallery and they take care of the framing through their framer. <br>

I also do some prints that are face mounted with acrylic and have a dibond backing. Those don't get framed. They are ready to hang as-is. But the gallery still breaks out the difference for the client as a "framing cost" which I get back as I underwrite the entire upfront cost of production on those pieces. I should note that all of my gallery deals are 50/50, which are less generous than yours. But otherwise, that's how the costs break down.<br>

I didn't see if you said what your substrate was (and forgive me if I missed it) but whether or not you are doing lambdas or pigment ink prints will obviously be a determining factor in your costs. You also didn't mention edition sizes. Prints that are hand-signed and numbered on the verso (in pencil only) in editions of, say, 25 or 30 (plus 2 artist proofs) will be more desirable to collectors.</p>

<p>Allie: With my galleries, the gallery generally takes care of the framing and passes that cost along to the client. For instance, a 12x18 print (lambda metallic c-print) would have a base price of $650 and the framing costs would be $250 for a final cost to the client of $900. I deliver the prints to the gallery and they take care of the framing through their framer. <br>

I also do some prints that are face mounted with acrylic and have a dibond backing. Those don't get framed. They are ready to hang as-is. But the gallery still breaks out the difference for the client as a "framing cost" which I get back as I underwrite the entire upfront cost of production on those pieces. I should note that all of my gallery deals are 50/50, which are less generous than yours. But otherwise, that's how the costs break down.<br>

I didn't see if you said what your substrate was (and forgive me if I missed it) but whether or not you are doing lambdas or pigment ink prints will obviously be a determining factor in your costs. You also didn't mention edition sizes. Prints that are hand-signed and numbered on the verso (in pencil only) in editions of, say, 25 or 30 (plus 2 artist proofs) will be more desirable to collectors.</p>

<p>I am a Seattle-based photographer who has recently had some good luck with a series of my images going viral around the world. A London gallery has contacted me with interest in selling prints of my work in the UK.<br />.<br>

Since the cost of shipping crates of prints from the West Coast of the UK would be high, they've offered to produce giclee and acrylic-mounted lambda prints locally from my digital files. They're offering me 1/3 of the retail price which, considering they would be footing the expense for producing the images and selling them at retail, is completely reasonable. And they've proposed edition numbers which would set limits on the number of prints.<br>

.<br>

<br /> The question I have is whether I should trust them. The gallery has a good looking website (http://www.theoldsweetshop.org/) that demonstrates that they seem to have good taste and appear to be a reasonably upscale venue. They seem to represent a number of other artists, though they are almost completely print-makers who produce their own art in London. So no other photographers with whom they are doing what they propose to do for me.<br /> It seems easy on my end, but obviously once the digital files are out of my control they could conceivably produce an unlimited number of prints without my knowledge.<br>

.<br>

I just thought I'd throw it out here and see if anyone had an opinion, pro or con. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael: Thanks so much for your advice. I'm really glad I got over worrying that the whole thing was a scam. The images syndicated in the UK last week and have gone viral:<br>

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/8523674/Disparity-by-Christopher-Boffoli-everyday-scenes-created-using-food-and-toy-figures.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/8523674/Disparity-by-Christopher-Boffoli-everyday-scenes-created-using-food-and-toy-figures.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gallery/gallery-e6frewxi-1226060120095?page=2" target="_blank">http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gallery/gallery-e6frewxi-1226060120095?page=2</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tyden.cz/rubriky/relax/zabava/skolnik-na-parku-v-rohliku-lavicka-v-celerovem-parku_202540.html" target="_blank">http://www.tyden.cz/rubriky/relax/zabava/skolnik-na-parku-v-rohliku-lavicka-v-celerovem-parku_202540.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/tiny-peoples-wonderful-world" target="_blank">http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/tiny-peoples-wonderful-world</a><br>

<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/burnred/food-artist-who-captures-the-daily-grind-in-miniat-281t" target="_blank">http://www.buzzfeed.com/burnred/food-artist-who-captures-the-daily-grind-in-miniat-281t</a><br>

<a href="http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-disparity-christopher-boffolis-amazing-food-art" target="_blank">http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-disparity-christopher-boffolis-amazing-food-art</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was contacted today by an image syndication company in the UK that has expressed interest in selling some of my images on my behalf. Apparently the way they work is that (with info I provide) they write up a short bit of text to use as a caption and then they sell the story and image(s) to British and other European newspapers and publications. It is basically filler stuff which seems fairly common in UK newspapers. Of course I retain copyright and get a photo credit. They get 50% of whatever fee they collect from the publication.</p>

<p>I can't say I'm really all that familiar with this segment of the market, beyond a bit of research I've done this morning. Has anyone else here sold any of their images this way? It seems similar to stock sales in some ways in that they're taking a big cut of the money and I don't have pre-approval over how or where the image is used. Obviously, the distance also makes enforcement difficult if they turn around and start selling my images elsewhere without my knowledge.</p>

<p>On one hand, it is a potential source of revenue for images already shot. On the other, I don't know these people and once the images are out of my control they can really do whatever they like with them. I also wonder if it would be reasonably easy for me to pitch the publications directly somehow and not give up half of the potential earnings. I have no idea what the syndication fees might be. But potentially hundreds of Pounds.</p>

<p>Just wanted to check in here to see if anyone had any insight, and/or could suggest questions to ask or other pitfalls to look out for. Thank you in advance.</p>

 

<p>I've used some of the methods described above with a bunch of different cameras, including my current workhorse (Canon 5DM2). The rocket blower is never enough and, since it isn't really filtered, I always wonder if it is just blowing the dirt around. The wet method, with a sensor cleaning kit and fluid, seems to work pretty reliably though it is somewhat tedious (cleaning, shooting, looking for dirt and cleaning again). I wonder why no one here has mentioned the use of Dust Delete Data. I find it can be a much more useful tool to let the software remove persistent dust spots up front, as opposed to spending time later manually removing spots from images.</p>

<p>I've never really thought about it. But I shoot with a Canon EOS 5DM2 and I drive a 2008 VW Eos Lux. I think there was a short-lived, business class only airline called Eos as well. Never flew it though.</p>

<p>Bob Bollinger: Yes, I would consider it a civic duty to provide the images to the court if they deemed them necessary. I'm not even really thinking about what fees I'd seek to recoup from the court for their use. It honestly would not make a difference to me whether or not the court paid me for my time. I just need to maintain journalistic objectivity which could potentially be compromised by selling images to a defense attorney.</p>

<p>Thank you, everyone, for the excellent answers. After some thought and consideration I decided not to sell the images. Brad W really hit on my principal concern. I discussed the situation with the publisher of the new blog (herself a multi Emmy award winning former TV news producer). She obviously affirmed that the images are my property and that it is my call. But she said that in her experience news organizations should not release images without being required to do so with a subpoena from the court. It is already occasionally challenging to do my job as the presence of a camera (especially during a dramatic stressful event when someone's adrenaline is up) can put people on edge. I decided to err on the side of principle as opposed to realizing a near-term financial gain. Obviously, the lawyer was not happy. My refusal to sell the images to him has him thinking I'm hiding something. He somewhat arrogantly admonished me to not delete the images until the criminal case is concluded. As if I'd delete my own images out of spite or something. Always nice when someone tells you what to do with your own property. I assured him that the images are archived and that if and when the court deems them necessary I will comply completely with their request.</p>

<p>I recently photographed a spot news event for a widely-read, micro-local news blog here in Seattle. It was an assault with a deadly weapons call late on a Friday night. A couple of guys got into it at a bar. Apparently, one of them was carrying a gun and when he pulled it out to pistol-whip the other a round was fired off. Fortunately, no one was struck by the bullet. But the discharge of a firearm brought out the police (and SWAT team) in force. I arrived on the chaotic scene about 10 minutes after the initial police call and started shooting. Obviously, I missed the actual altercation itself. But I photographed the aftermath, including the apprehension of the suspect. I was maybe on the scene for about 30 minutes. Several of my photographs ran on the blog and I was paid my standard rate ($175) for the coverage. I own the copyright to the images and am unlimited in their future use.<br>

Yesterday, I was contacted by a law firm asking to purchase all of the images I shot that night. I assume they are for courtroom use. Not sure yet if it is the defense attorney or counsel for the plantiff in a civil case. If one side buys the images the other side will certainly have access to them through discovery.<br>

Questions: Does anyone foresee any pitfalls with this use of journalistic images? Could it potentially make my job harder if people are reluctant for me to photograph news events knowing that the pictures might end up as evidence in a court case? Beyond that, other than providing a general sense of the scene that night I'm not sure the images are particularly illuminating in terms of the actual fight as I arrived after it was over. <br>

What would be a reasonable fee to charge for courtroom use?</p>

<p>For all the discussion of whether or not it was appropriate for the Small Claims Court here in King County to adjudicate my case, I'm happy to report that I received a check in the mail today for the full judgment. The real estate agent used every one of her 30 days to pay it, which began to make me wonder if she would. It is also worth noting that, rather than be gracious and take responsibility for her mistake, instead she felt the need to write a couple of colorful things on the face of the check. But it certainly won't delay me from cashing it. Whether or not I should have won where I did now becomes moot. I took a chance and it paid off. The money is less sweet than the justice. But I'll be using the proceeds to purchase a new Canon 85mm 1.2L lens! I felt a further investment in equipment was a wise use of the windfall. Thanks again to all those here who offered words of support and to the attorneys who took the time to enrich the discussion with expert opinions on the matter.</p>

<p>Thanks John. Here's another post (http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/08/can-you-sue-in-state-small-claims-court.html) which supports the position that this judgment was wrong on the basis of jurisdiction. The author suggests (and I agree for self-serving reasons) that perhaps it is a reasonable argument that state courts should be permitted to adjudicate small-dollar copyright cases as a remedy for minor disputes.</p>

<p>From a comment thread on another site where news of my case is posted (and this is from an attorney who is actually a member of the bar in Washington State):<br>

"For those arguing the jurisdiction of SMC, you need to separate the claims correctly. Christopher was making a claim about the unlawful use of his property, not the copyright. The fact that it was copyrighted in this case is just support for his ownership claims. If he had chosen to, there would also be a copyright claim against CBA (who wrongfully claimed it) and CBA would have a decent fraud claim against the realtor, who fraudulently claimed ownership. (BTW, the admission that "this is the way we do business" HURTS her claim that it was the assistant's fault. Apparently the assistant was doing business as explained to her by her superior.) The claim against theft is completely independent of a copyright claim in that it can (and did) stand alone."</p>

<p>Craig: I take offense at the characterization that trying to spread the word of my success in this instance is "self-congratulatory." My intent on sharing this experience is to empower others in the same situation to give the small claims strategy a try. Even if you're right, it seems to me that anyone who works in law would know that these things can sometimes be more of an art than a science. If a well-presented case can lose on the whim of a judge or misguided jury, why is it so bad when things work the other way sometimes and a just cause can prevail? (Unless you have an axe to grind against the notion of a photographer being able to hold responsible someone who profited illegally from his work). I have a lawyer but the small claims path was cheap, low-risk and I didn't spend a dime on billable hours by getting him involved. Again, your points are all well taken but we just disagree. I also don't think that the litmus test for the efficacy of a legal argument should be based on whether or not ambulance chasers advertise for it on the side of a bus.</p>