Over the weekend, the team at VOTogs posted an article revealing a government organization potentially taking advantage of photographers via rather sneaky means. The Vivid Sydney arts and cultural event, headed by Destination NSW, naturally has a Facebook page (screen-captured with the lead image) where people can find all the necessary information about the event. This is all pretty casual, but what got the VOTOGs (and us) is that hidden away on the About page was a set of terms in addition to Facebook’s Terms in which it was stated that members of the public posting photographs on the Facebook page in effect gave Destination NSW the license to use said photographs in any way they saw fit, free of charge, for as long as they wished. [Read more...]
It’s a sad reality for small business photographers that there will be times where their work is stolen by others. Most of the time they’ll barely be able to fight it, either, and they’ll drop charges just because they can’t go on with them.
But its not everyday that you hear about that work being stolen by other artists.
That’s what happened to Rohan Anderson, a photographer from Australia whose work was just recently posted on the Facebook page of a band called The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus. Featuring one of the band’s guitarists, the photo was cropped, filtered, and put up on the page with nothing other than the caption “SHREDDER.” [Read more...]
Copyright infringement is one of those problems that never seems to go away. It doesn’t seem to matter how well we educate our clients or the general public. Unfortunately, there will always be people–photographers included– who just don’t seem to get it. Clients think that purchasing a photo grants them eternal, all-encompassing rights to whatever they choose to do with our work, wherever they choose to do it. People have it in their heads that just because a photo shows up in a Google Images search, that this somehow makes it open season for use on their websites, newsletters, blogs, and Facebook posts
As photographers, we know that we need to protect our work from all of these varying degrees of infringement. Unfortunately, too many photographers don’t take the relatively easy steps to adequately protect themselves from the unauthorized use of their hard work.
Last week (although by the time I post this it’ll be two weeks) BuzzFeed posted a highly successful “listical” 18 Everyday Products You’ve Been Using Wrong], it went viral and you can see why. The list is useful, involving household items some of which you probably use on a daily basis and has that “of course!” level of enlightenment.
And when I say “highly successful” I mean their most viewed post in way over two months, here’s a recent top 5…
- 18 Everyday Products You’ve Been Using Wrong – 4,239,456
- 21 Painfully Awkward Band Photos – 2,920,505
- 28 Things That Happened After The Harry Potter Books Ended – 2,615,219
- Will Smith’s Family Reacting To Miley Cyrus Is Perfect – 1,733,798
- 17 Problems Only Book Lovers Will Understand – 1,374,124
We’ll get back to it being one of it’s most successful pages and why this is important in a moment. But first this is where my problem with this list comes in, down at number 14…
…where they used my copyrighted photo without permission. [Read more...]
There are a lot of misconceptions about photography and copyright. Some of the more common questions (and wrong answers – at least on the net) concern copyright ownership, photo usage, online usage, fair use and licensing.
Others concern model releases, invoicing & payments (and their relations to copyrights) and legal documents and wordings.
Jack Reznicki and Ed Greenberg A.K.A The Copyright Zone (and authors the Photographer’s Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age) have a great lecture on B&H indepth blog.
It is a one hour and fifty minutes long lecture, but it clears a lot of the questions and misconceptions around the subject of copyrights and well worth the time watching it.
UPDATE: apparently some one at The Kernel noticed the buzz the video was generating. So it is now set to private, which means it is not viewable anymore.
With videos being so common, we’ve seen our share of how papers who infringe copyrights handle the situation. If the paper is smart they will (grant a bit but) accept an invoice and be done with it.
If they are extremely deaf or have no understanding of how the nets work nowadays, they will make a video ranting about the photographer, then change 60 pounds into 15 kilos worth of pennies and go and hand them to the photographer.