Copyright infringement or overreaction?

[Gaetan J.]

I don't think church related activities should be opportunities for
money making.
Isabel

not the point at all. The subject is "respecting someone else's work and person" If the photog want to charge he can and if he wants to give he can also. It is his to give or sell. Being in a religion do not give special rights.

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Gaetan J.]

How about respecting someone's work no mather if it was good or bad.

I have been trying to get a local photo business going. Nothing
major, but I am hoping it will build. For about a year I have been
shooting all my church's events for free, as part of my tithe.
They reimburse me for the ink and paper to print them out. I then
post some of the best ones on the church bulliten board for
everyone to enjoy.

The other day I overheard a woman at my church telling her friend
how she had taken one of my pictures from the bulletin board, taken
it to have "enlargements" done and then given these enlargements as
Christmas gifts. This wasn't a picture of her, BTW, but of the
members she ended up "making the gift" for.

What should I do about this? I know she didn't mean any harm, but
I was really annoyed. Especially since I have made all the
pictures available to any church member who wants them at $1.00
each , which is my printing cost. I didn't say anything to her
because I didn't want to overreact. I am thinking about getting an
ink stamp and stamping the backs of all my pictures with the
copyright and the words "do not copy without written permission".
What do you all think?

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
Canon S20, Sony S75, F707

--
F717 (ya!), S230 (carry it everywhere), S40 (wife), Oly 2000 (Kid)

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Lisa Young74699]

My posts talks about a church that took advantage of a friend photographer.

Lisa

The question raised was about stealing (which it was) her
intellectual property, how she should handle it and what she could
do int he future to prevent it from happening again.

Now as for comments made by you and Mike and Bauerman and others
about the propriety of engaging in commerce with or at a church, I
have this to say. Churches are a business. Many churches are a very
big business. Many enterprises of or connected with churches are
money making businesses. Many non church businesses have churches
as regular paying customers.

What you folks wish to do with your time and money regarding a
religious enterprise is certainly your affair but you might want to
reconsider telling others what they should do.

-Ed

I used to take pictures for my church and helped decorate the
bulletin boards with my prints. The purpose of posting those
prints was to pick up the spirits of the members of the church and
to increase their enthusiasm for the ministires being portrayed.
It never entered my mind to earn any money for my efforts.
In one case a group had gone on a trip to Williamsburg and I took a
picture of them in front of the bus. They wanted copies, which I
printed for them. I did charge something like $3 for an 8 x 10
print...the money I collected went to the Interfaith Assistance
Ministry.
I don't think church related activities should be opportunities for
money making.
Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
http://www.pBase.com/isabel95
pBase supporter

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

 

[Mike68495]

How about not getting all caught up in a fit of self importance with regard to your "work". It's a freakin' snapshot of some old ladies. Geez.

I have been trying to get a local photo business going. Nothing
major, but I am hoping it will build. For about a year I have been
shooting all my church's events for free, as part of my tithe.
They reimburse me for the ink and paper to print them out. I then
post some of the best ones on the church bulliten board for
everyone to enjoy.

The other day I overheard a woman at my church telling her friend
how she had taken one of my pictures from the bulletin board, taken
it to have "enlargements" done and then given these enlargements as
Christmas gifts. This wasn't a picture of her, BTW, but of the
members she ended up "making the gift" for.

What should I do about this? I know she didn't mean any harm, but
I was really annoyed. Especially since I have made all the
pictures available to any church member who wants them at $1.00
each , which is my printing cost. I didn't say anything to her
because I didn't want to overreact. I am thinking about getting an
ink stamp and stamping the backs of all my pictures with the
copyright and the words "do not copy without written permission".
What do you all think?

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
Canon S20, Sony S75, F707

--
F717 (ya!), S230 (carry it everywhere), S40 (wife), Oly 2000 (Kid)

--
Gaetan J.

--
F717 (ya!), S230 (carry it everywhere), S40 (wife), Oly 2000 (Kid)

 

[Joe Murphy]

For about a year I have been
shooting all my church's events for free, as part of my tithe.

Ummm... going to be a "hair" picky here. Tithe is the old English word for "tenth". Tithing litterally means to give one tenth of you "first fruits", ie one tenth off all income before taxes and other deductions (gross income). I don't mean to be anal about this, but I know people who toss $5 in now and then and talk about giving a "tithe"... very inaccurate.

As for the picture situation, I'd be put out also. I too take tons of pictures for my church and let them post whatever they like. But after thinking about it for a while, I had to ask myself if I were giving the Lord my labor but not the fruit of the labor. It's kind of like saying that one is an excellent farmer and will plant and care for a garden for the church, but the vegetables belong to the farmer.

I would say that if you (and I) are going to give this time and expertise to the Lord, we've got to GIVE IT to him and not give it with one hand and hold it back with the other. In fact, this has just made me decide to officially consider photo's I take FOR MY CHURCH (as opposed to simply "at my church) the property of the church. I figure either I'm giving it to God or I'm not, but I've got to pick one or the other and not sit on the fence.

Everyone else, of course, has to decide for his or her own self.

Happy New Year!

Joe
--
He Is No Fool Who Gives Up What He Cannot Keep For That Which He Cannot Lose.

 

[Negative287]

Not to sound preachy but... The bible says if you sin against your brother don't let the sun go down without resolving it with them (granted this isn't your issue but hers). It also says the christians shouldn't be taking each other to court and they should strive to live together in harmony.

I'd personally just let her know that you were upset about that and you would've done that for her. Personally though I do pretty much anything, that I have skill for, for free to members of my church; I've fixed PC's and taken pictures as well as waited on them because I feel an obligation... However, none of those things had a cost that came out of my pocket and you should be reimbursed for that cost at the very least.

Remember, a gentle word turns away wrath!

--
http://www.pbase.com/elterrible

 

[Ed (;¬ >)]

So then you agree that this woman who took the picture and made unauthorized reprints was stealing. She just wasn't stealing from the photographer. She was stealing from God.

Sounds even worse to me.

-Ed ( I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges. ) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

For about a year I have been
shooting all my church's events for free, as part of my tithe.

Ummm... going to be a "hair" picky here. Tithe is the old English
word for "tenth". Tithing litterally means to give one tenth of you
"first fruits", ie one tenth off all income before taxes and other
deductions (gross income). I don't mean to be anal about this, but
I know people who toss $5 in now and then and talk about giving a
"tithe"... very inaccurate.

As for the picture situation, I'd be put out also. I too take tons
of pictures for my church and let them post whatever they like. But
after thinking about it for a while, I had to ask myself if I were
giving the Lord my labor but not the fruit of the labor. It's kind
of like saying that one is an excellent farmer and will plant and
care for a garden for the church, but the vegetables belong to the
farmer.

I would say that if you (and I) are going to give this time and
expertise to the Lord, we've got to GIVE IT to him and not give it
with one hand and hold it back with the other. In fact, this has
just made me decide to officially consider photo's I take FOR MY
CHURCH (as opposed to simply "at my church) the property of the
church. I figure either I'm giving it to God or I'm not, but I've
got to pick one or the other and not sit on the fence.

Everyone else, of course, has to decide for his or her own self.

Happy New Year!

Joe
--
He Is No Fool Who Gives Up What He Cannot Keep For That Which He
Cannot Lose.

 

[Ed (;¬ >)]

My posts talks about a church that took advantage of a friend
photographer.

Lisa

I try to read most of the posts before I shoot my mouth off. The story you recount is similar to many I have experienced either personally or through friends.

These have been more frequent since I have moved below the Bible Belt. I'm afraid that I just don't react too well to sanctimony, and there has been a lot of that in this thread.

When will people learn that their moral compass is to guide -them- and not to bludgeon others into compliance with their values. Unfortunately lisafx has been on the butt end of a lot of it.

-Ed ( Bacon & eggs - Hens are involved but pigs are committed. ) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

 

[Ed (;¬ >)]

Mike, you are certainly entitled to catagorize your own work in any way you please. Lisa is entitled to the same.

Since it is human nature to judge others against oneself it hardly leaves tot he imagination what you must think of your own work.

-Ed W.
"I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him."
—Theresa of Avila
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

How about respecting someone's work no mather if it was good or bad.

 

[Ronald E. Chambers]

I've been involved in the same situation where photos (actual a cd containing them) were given to a church. I did specify in a cover note and on the cd that any use for the church in brochures etc. was fine as long as copyright ownership was stated. I also stated use other than specifically for church was prohibited without my permission.

A week afterward, the church used the images with no ownership mention and another non-church site showed up using the images.

Luckily a friend, after asking the web sites whose photos they were, told that she really liked the photos. I naturally went looking.

The next morning I called the pastor and reminded him of the use of the photos and he acted dumb-founded. I told him my options and he handled it.

The person who you gave the photos to is responsible for the copyright according to my lawyer.

DON'T PUT UP WITH THIS. CALL THE PASTOR!!!

Holler by e-mail if you'd like to discuss more.
RON C

I have been trying to get a local photo business going. Nothing
major, but I am hoping it will build. For about a year I have been
shooting all my church's events for free, as part of my tithe.
They reimburse me for the ink and paper to print them out. I then
post some of the best ones on the church bulliten board for
everyone to enjoy.

The other day I overheard a woman at my church telling her friend
how she had taken one of my pictures from the bulletin board, taken
it to have "enlargements" done and then given these enlargements as
Christmas gifts. This wasn't a picture of her, BTW, but of the
members she ended up "making the gift" for.

What should I do about this? I know she didn't mean any harm, but
I was really annoyed. Especially since I have made all the
pictures available to any church member who wants them at $1.00
each , which is my printing cost. I didn't say anything to her
because I didn't want to overreact. I am thinking about getting an
ink stamp and stamping the backs of all my pictures with the
copyright and the words "do not copy without written permission".
What do you all think?

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
Canon S20, Sony S75, F707

 

[Joe Murphy]

You bring up an excellent point! I guess that's why the situation needs to be hammered out completely. It may be that the church wouldn't care and would be happy that the congregation (actually, they ARE the church) would have use of the photos.

Joe

So then you agree that this woman who took the picture and made
unauthorized reprints was stealing. She just wasn't stealing from
the photographer. She was stealing from God.

Sounds even worse to me.

--
He Is No Fool Who Gives Up What He Cannot Keep For That Which He Cannot Lose.

 

[MAC]

Your story is great Ed! You do have talent with this. Hope you don't mind if I use this story elsewhere, I like it so much!



Take care Ed and happy new year to 505v users everywhere! Hmm, my daughter has mine now, and my wife has G3 and I'm D30, I always enjoyed your stories, this is no exception!

happy New year!

MAC

A recently retired engineer was called back by his company in an
emergent dither for a non functioning project at a major client. He
dragged himself to the site wandering around the machinery. Finally
he stopped, reached over to some frammis part and drew a big "X"
saying, "Here's your problem."

Well they fixed it and soon got a bill from him for Services
Rendered: $10,000.

The company bean counters wrote back in a fit of umbrage saying
that before they could pay his bill they would need an itemized
accounting.

His resubmitted bill read: One Chalkmark = $1.00; knowing where to
put it = $9,999.00

-Ed ( Get in - buckle up - shut up - and hold on! ) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

apocryphal (e-pòk´re-fel) adjective
1. Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
2. Erroneous; fictitious: "Wildly apocryphal rumors about
starvation in Petrograd . . . raced through Russia's trenches" (W.
Bruce Lincoln).
3. ApocryphalAbbr. Apoc. Bible.. Of or having to do with the
Apocrypha.

• apoc´ryphally adverb

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights
reserved.

I think many people take photography for granted. I mean, they
have a camera, they take pictuers. Nothing special. No big deal.
In fact, many people can't even distinguish good photos/processing
from bad/processing - or they don't care. These people would place
no value on any photographs.

I'm afraid you're right, Jim, and I got a smile out of an earlier
post where it was contended that the church had made a conscious
decision based on its (erroneously) perceived rights to the prints.
My feeling instead is that the issue would simply never have
crossed its mind.

A corollary to what you're describing is exemplified in the field
of professional lithographic pre-press (and the printing processes
themselves).

A close friend of mine ran a small but successful offset printing
business, of very high quality, from his residential address for
about 20 years prior to his untimely death in 2000. A few years ago
he was asked by a mutual acquaintance to help her and her parents'
group produce a small cookery book to be sold as a fundraiser at
their school fête. He welcomed a small group of the mothers into
his printery, and gave them the satisfaction of learning and
carrying out the typesetting, neg and platemaking and binding under
his guidance, doing the actual print run himself at no charge. When
he finally sent in his account for the materials alone --
absolutely at cost, which was extremely low as it reflected his own
volume discounts -- one notoriously overbearing matron on the
committee took one look at his professionally presented invoice and
said of it haughtily, "That's too much; he's just a backyard
printer!"

Yes he was. With about $150,000 worth of precision equipment in the
two small buildings in that backyard, and the skills to make the
most of it. The logic here was so pathetic it was hilarious. And a
frustrating reminder of the way people often think. Not always
scheming, let alone nefariously so; often just plain dumb.
Sometimes, with people who aren't in touch with real-world monetary
values, placing these courteously but with resolve before their
eyes is all that's needed to yield a workable and amicable solution.

These people, of course, see the emergence of a completed sheet
from an offset press as having no more effort and skill behind it
that popping a coin into the photocopier at their local public
library and getting an adequately legible result. What gets to me
is not that they're incapable of understanding the issues, but that
they just can't summon the effort to look. It's a symptom of our
"disposable" society, which would do well to adopt your signature
motto as its mantra: "Why simply live and let live? Live and help
live."

Mike

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

 

[Gaetan J.]

no respect for others, typical religious reaction

I have been trying to get a local photo business going. Nothing
major, but I am hoping it will build. For about a year I have been
shooting all my church's events for free, as part of my tithe.
They reimburse me for the ink and paper to print them out. I then
post some of the best ones on the church bulliten board for
everyone to enjoy.

The other day I overheard a woman at my church telling her friend
how she had taken one of my pictures from the bulletin board, taken
it to have "enlargements" done and then given these enlargements as
Christmas gifts. This wasn't a picture of her, BTW, but of the
members she ended up "making the gift" for.

What should I do about this? I know she didn't mean any harm, but
I was really annoyed. Especially since I have made all the
pictures available to any church member who wants them at $1.00
each , which is my printing cost. I didn't say anything to her
because I didn't want to overreact. I am thinking about getting an
ink stamp and stamping the backs of all my pictures with the
copyright and the words "do not copy without written permission".
What do you all think?

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
Canon S20, Sony S75, F707

--
F717 (ya!), S230 (carry it everywhere), S40 (wife), Oly 2000 (Kid)

--
Gaetan J.

--
F717 (ya!), S230 (carry it everywhere), S40 (wife), Oly 2000 (Kid)

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Jim40055]

Big deal. What's the value of the photos anyway. You did it gratis for the church, they should belong to the church, which includes the congregation, and no petty squable.

If it's the credit and recognition you want, then mark them with your name.

Definition of a gift:
1.The recipient wants it.
2. There are no strings attached (like Copyright)

This doesn't sound like a gift

 

[Gaetan J.]

So now the church owns the work. When you go to church you probably do not respect the no parking signs like they do around here. Typical

Joe

So then you agree that this woman who took the picture and made
unauthorized reprints was stealing. She just wasn't stealing from
the photographer. She was stealing from God.

Sounds even worse to me.

--
He Is No Fool Who Gives Up What He Cannot Keep For That Which He
Cannot Lose.

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Ed (;¬ >)]

caveat*

...then you won't appear uninformed and misdirected and your efforts might even be helpful and not so easily dismissed.

Big deal. What's the value of the photos anyway.

What value do you place on your time and photographic talents? A response like this indicates it might be very little. Many of us, including Lisa,
have some self-worth and respect.

You did it gratis for the church, they should belong to the church, which includes the congregation, and no petty squable.

Did what gratis? Lisa is a struggling professional photographer. In an agreement with her church she donated her time and talent and the church agreed to pay a nominal fee for expenses.

Her efforts were to provide photos of church members at church events for display on the bulletin board for the enjoyment of the members. It was explained in the church bulletin that members could have copies for a nominal fee of $1, to cover expense. (it is unclear whether pics were also published in the bulletin.)

If it's the credit and recognition you want, then mark them with
your name.

There was no mention of credit and recognition. Simply maintaining her interests.

Definition of a gift:
1.The recipient wants it.
2. There are no strings attached (like Copyright)
This doesn't sound like a gift

As I stated before. The gift was of her time and talents. The pictures were not gifted, just loaned.

I believe in responding to posts with the same demeanor as the poster.

-Ed ( All my best for the New Year ) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

 

[Joe Murphy]

Not quite sure where your inappropriate ire is coming from, but as for parking... my church owns its own parking lot and typically says nothing to the people who regularly use it to park their extra cars or use it as a cut through in the neighborhood.

Next question?

Joe

Joe

So then you agree that this woman who took the picture and made
unauthorized reprints was stealing. She just wasn't stealing from
the photographer. She was stealing from God.

Sounds even worse to me.

--
He Is No Fool Who Gives Up What He Cannot Keep For That Which He
Cannot Lose.

--
Gaetan J.

--
He Is No Fool Who Gives Up What He Cannot Keep For That Which He Cannot Lose.

 

[Lisa Young74699]

So funny you mentioned the Bible Belt.

Lisa

My posts talks about a church that took advantage of a friend
photographer.

Lisa

I try to read most of the posts before I shoot my mouth off. The
story you recount is similar to many I have experienced either
personally or through friends.

These have been more frequent since I have moved below the Bible
Belt. I'm afraid that I just don't react too well to sanctimony,
and there has been a lot of that in this thread.

When will people learn that their moral compass is to guide -them-
and not to bludgeon others into compliance with their values.
Unfortunately lisafx has been on the butt end of a lot of it.

-Ed ( Bacon & eggs - Hens are involved but pigs are committed. ) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

 

[Mike Schrengohst]

I am thinking about getting an

ink stamp and stamping the backs of all my pictures with the
copyright and the words "do not copy without written permission".
What do you all think?

LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
Canon S20, Sony S75, F707

For something like this I would put your credit right on the the photo.
I mean Photo By: "Me"
Then in small type under the pic on the website:
Do not use without permission of "me"
Especially for donation work. I would just write a nice
note to the person who took your photo.
"Thank you so much, I am glad you like the photo I took -
please next time ask me first and I will be more than happy
to provide photos at a nominal fee."

That way you get your point across will being nice.

I have had similar situations in the past and this is what I have done.

Mike

 

[Mike68495]

Oh you are sooooo profound!! I have enough fullfilling things in my life that I don't have to pretend I'm some sort of artist. I see you have pictures of all your friends on your Pbase gallery. Now scat off and interact with some of them. Such profound work.

Since it is human nature to judge others against oneself it hardly
leaves tot he imagination what you must think of your own work.

-Ed W.
"I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him."
—Theresa of Avila
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

How about respecting someone's work no mather if it was good or bad.

--
F717 (ya!), S230 (carry it everywhere), S40 (wife), Oly 2000 (Kid)