Update to "National Magazine encourages....."

Just thought you folks might get a kick out of this. Got it in my email this morning.

DIPics

November 30, 2006

Dear PPA Member,

Did you hear the one about the reporter who advocated copyright infringement? And did you hear how PPA responded?

The saga started a few weeks ago when a story from SmartMoney.com advocated scanning photographs and sending them to relatives instead of buying additional prints. Worse yet, the story was featured on AOL’s news page.

But PPA members banded together. And who did the photographers contact to address this wrong and lead the fight? PPA.

PPA sprang into action by contacting the author and the SmartMoney.com editorial staff. When that did not produce the desired results, PPA then took their concerns straight to SmartMoney’s corporate attorneys.

At the same time, the PPA-operated forum, http://www.OurPPA.com , became the information hub for photographers who were pushing AOL and SmartMoney to remove the story. Photographers of all types shared information, sample letters, and updates on the situation.

As a result, AOL quickly removed the entire article from its website. And while SmartMoney.com’s editorial staff defiantly vowed to “stand by their story,” the online magazine made it impossible to find on their website or in their archives.

Removing the suggestion that consumers violate copyright is an important victory in the battle for photographer rights. It also spotlights one of the things that makes PPA unique: No other photography organization can claim the combination of professional staff and dedicated members that PPA possesses.

Because everyone involved lends a hand and bands together, PPA accomplishes things that others simply cannot do. As a result, our actions speak even louder than our words. And that is part of the value of PPA membership.

Many thanks to all the Members who helped spot and address this problem.

Sincerely,

Al Hopper

Director of Membership, Copyright and Government Affairs Professional Photographers of America

Is incitement to copyright theft an offence ?

Unbelieveable that this action was necessary, but nevertheless a job well done by you and your members!

--
Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde

In these situations of where a school hires a photographer to take class pictures I would suspect in most cases the parents have to sign some of permission form. This form should contain the rights withheld and rights granted to the photographer and school. If it a blanket grant for the photographer and photographer to own ALL rights and the parents NONE the parents are just offering free modelling services of their kids to the photographer.

Now that these issues are becoming more important these permission grants should be more explicit.

--mamallama

Having worked in that business a long time ago (it hasn't changed much), the copyrights are ALWAYS with the photographer. The contract generally allows limited use to the school for yearbooks and such.

DIPics

mamallama said:

In these situations of where a school hires a photographer to take
class pictures I would suspect in most cases the parents have to
sign some of permission form. This form should contain the rights
withheld and rights granted to the photographer and school. If it a
blanket grant for the photographer and photographer to own ALL
rights and the parents NONE the parents are just offering free
modelling services of their kids to the photographer.

Now that these issues are becoming more important these permission
grants should be more explicit.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

I must apologize. The above was a cut and paste from a letter I received from the PP of A. I didn’t mean to imply that I had anything to do with the action.

DIPics

Isola Verde said:

Is incitement to copyright theft an offence ?

Unbelieveable that this action was necessary, but nevertheless a
job well done by you and your members!

--
Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde

Click to expand...

dipics said:

Having worked in that business a long time ago (it hasn't changed
much), the copyrights are ALWAYS with the photographer. The
contract generally allows limited use to the school for yearbooks
and such.

Click to expand...

Times now seem to be different with scanning, computers and home printing so common AND everyone so copyright conscience. When photographic facilities and capabilities were rare these class pictures granting the photographer total rights made sense. Now they don't. The schools need to modify their permission form so parents don't give away all rights.

If I were a parent with kids in school, I would not sign away all my rights.

--mamallama

I didn't mean what I said in the other thread about considering a change in the copyright statu quo. Dipics you seem to have influence with the big boys at the PPA, won't you cut me some slack? Please, tell them no to send the hitmen, yet )

Regards

igb said:

I didn't mean what I said in the other thread about considering a
change in the copyright statu quo. Dipics you seem to have
influence with the big boys at the PPA, won't you cut me some
slack? Please, tell them no to send the hitmen, yet )

Click to expand...

Sorry. Once those contracts go out they can't be called back.

However, if you're really cooperative and pleasant when they get there you may get to choose which thumb you loose....

--
bob

Special Thai Ladies for You
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/SpecialThaiLadies
(Warning! Some full frontal nudity)

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

Much of the photographic community is frantic about this yet see little of "their" own responsibility in helping to create a situation that is exploitable. Schools exploit the parents for fundraisng, photographers atempt to exploit the parents and kids, for fundraising. Parents? Want to know why they need to pay $10 or more to get another 5x7 print from a mass produced package that they "know" costs about $2.00 a page. There is little doubt that most folks would understand the there is a basic cost to recover but they also know at some point, more prints really are just more sheets in a printer and more button pushes.

Doesn't make it "legal" but ought to make it understandable.

As to thinking anyone is going to get a personal answer after thousands of photographers have bombarded a wide variety of targets with outraged e-mails? Not likely.

dipics said:

Having worked in that business a long time ago (it hasn't changed
much), the copyrights are ALWAYS with the photographer. The
contract generally allows limited use to the school for yearbooks
and such.

Click to expand...

--Once a photog sells their services to a client, ANY product's ownership arising out of that contract should reside solely with the client, i.e., the school in the case of a school photo. Why is it photogs get to retain ownership of that when (for instance) someone working for a drug company creates a new drug they do not have ANY rights to it?
Photography is a product, nothing more.
-Rich

E-1, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, OM24mmf2.8, OM35mmf2.8, OM50mmf1.4, OM50mm macro f3.5, OM135mmf2.8, OM100-200mmf5, OM300mmf4.5, SHLD-2, FL-20.
CANADIANS! Do NOT use UPS for ANY purchase shipments!!!



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

I have to vehemently disagree. Unless there is a contract to the contrary, photographic copyright should remain with the photographer.

If you buy a book, do you also buy the copyright? Can you copy and sell (or even give away) copies of the book? Of course not.

How about a movie? Well, the same applies.

The reason that a person working for a drug company doesn't get to keep the rights and I do is simple. He is an employee of the drug company, I am NOT an employee of the subject or his/her parents. If I am the employee of a photo studio and am working a job for them, then the copyright belongs to the studio, not to me.

DIPics

rander3127 said:

dipics said:

Having worked in that business a long time ago (it hasn't changed
much), the copyrights are ALWAYS with the photographer. The
contract generally allows limited use to the school for yearbooks
and such.

Click to expand...

--Once a photog sells their services to a client, ANY product's
ownership arising out of that contract should reside solely with
the client, i.e., the school in the case of a school photo. Why is
it photogs get to retain ownership of that when (for instance)
someone working for a drug company creates a new drug they do not
have ANY rights to it?
Photography is a product, nothing more.
-Rich
E-1, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, OM24mmf2.8, OM35mmf2.8, OM50mmf1.4, OM50mm
macro f3.5, OM135mmf2.8, OM100-200mmf5, OM300mmf4.5, SHLD-2, FL-20.
CANADIANS! Do NOT use UPS for ANY purchase shipments!!!



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

Click to expand...

If you do any photography professionally, you should join them yourself. They are a great group and do a lot of good for photography and photographers.

DIPics

igb said:

I didn't mean what I said in the other thread about considering a
change in the copyright statu quo. Dipics you seem to have
influence with the big boys at the PPA, won't you cut me some
slack? Please, tell them no to send the hitmen, yet )

Regards

Click to expand...

dipics said:

I have to vehemently disagree. Unless there is a contract to the
contrary, photographic copyright should remain with the
photographer.

If you buy a book, do you also buy the copyright? Can you copy and
sell (or even give away) copies of the book? Of course not.

How about a movie? Well, the same applies.

The reason that a person working for a drug company doesn't get to
keep the rights and I do is simple. He is an employee of the drug
company, I am NOT an employee of the subject or his/her parents.
If I am the employee of a photo studio and am working a job for
them, then the copyright belongs to the studio, not to me.

Click to expand...

But if the person is the company photographer the job description may specify that images shot while at work belong to the company.

This would be a specific agreement to reassign copyright.

Take a picture. It's yours unless you agree otherwise by pre-shot or post-shot arrangement.

--
bob

Special Thai Ladies for You
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/SpecialThaiLadies
(Warning! Some full frontal nudity)

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

dipics said:

DIPics

igb said:

I didn't mean what I said in the other thread about considering a
change in the copyright statu quo. Dipics you seem to have
influence with the big boys at the PPA, won't you cut me some
slack? Please, tell them no to send the hitmen, yet )

Regards

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--They only suggested doing it. That the PPA would go on some warpath rather than use the same or another venue to suggest not doing it reminds me of how the MPAA RIAA behaves and why they are so despised by anyone except those in their group. Even some of those who they claim to be protecting don't like them. If a law (or fuzzy law) makes no sense, then I see nothing wrong with someone voicing their objection to it and suggesting a way around it. Worst case scenario, it stirs up debate, something the PPA obviously wanted to kill. Ownership residing with a photographer opens up the possibility of the pictures never being obtainable again since you have no idea as to what the photographer will be doing. They could move, die, whatever. If a compromise was reached, such as the photographer selling the rights to each parent (in the case of school pictures) at the time of the shooting, it would avoid such annoyances.
-Rich

E-1, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, OM24mmf2.8, OM35mmf2.8, OM50mmf1.4, OM50mm macro f3.5, OM135mmf2.8, OM100-200mmf5, OM300mmf4.5, SHLD-2, FL-20.
CANADIANS! Do NOT use UPS for ANY purchase shipments!!!



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

BobTrips said:

dipics said:

I have to vehemently disagree. Unless there is a contract to the
contrary, photographic copyright should remain with the
photographer.

If you buy a book, do you also buy the copyright? Can you copy and
sell (or even give away) copies of the book? Of course not.

How about a movie? Well, the same applies.

The reason that a person working for a drug company doesn't get to
keep the rights and I do is simple. He is an employee of the drug
company, I am NOT an employee of the subject or his/her parents.
If I am the employee of a photo studio and am working a job for
them, then the copyright belongs to the studio, not to me.

Click to expand...

But if the person is the company photographer the job description
may specify that images shot while at work belong to the company.

This would be a specific agreement to reassign copyright.

Take a picture. It's yours unless you agree otherwise by pre-shot
or post-shot arrangement.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct. I used the example of a photographer working for a photo studio but, if employee of a company takes photos as part of his job for that company, the company most likely owns the copyright.

DIPics

Member said:

--
bob

Special Thai Ladies for You
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/SpecialThaiLadies
(Warning! Some full frontal nudity)

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

Click to expand...

rander3127 said:

dipics said:

DIPics

igb said:

I didn't mean what I said in the other thread about considering a
change in the copyright statu quo. Dipics you seem to have
influence with the big boys at the PPA, won't you cut me some
slack? Please, tell them no to send the hitmen, yet )

Regards

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--They only suggested doing it. That the PPA would go on some
warpath rather than use the same or another venue to suggest not
doing it reminds me of how the MPAA RIAA behaves and why they are
so despised by anyone except those in their group. Even some of
those who they claim to be protecting don't like them. If a law
(or fuzzy law) makes no sense, then I see nothing wrong with
someone voicing their objection to it and suggesting a way around
it. Worst case scenario, it stirs up debate, something the PPA
obviously wanted to kill. Ownership residing with a photographer
opens up the possibility of the pictures never being obtainable
again since you have no idea as to what the photographer will be
doing. They could move, die, whatever. If a compromise was
reached, such as the photographer selling the rights to each parent
(in the case of school pictures) at the time of the shooting, it
would avoid such annoyances.
-Rich
E-1, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, OM24mmf2.8, OM35mmf2.8, OM50mmf1.4, OM50mm
macro f3.5, OM135mmf2.8, OM100-200mmf5, OM300mmf4.5, SHLD-2, FL-20.
CANADIANS! Do NOT use UPS for ANY purchase shipments!!!



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

Click to expand...

I have no problem at all with a photographer selling his rights. But, it is his call. I for example will sell a DVD with full sized wedding photos on it. My clients can purchase this DVD in addition (not seperately from) any package for a fairly high price. It comes with a letter from me granting rights to the couple to print whatever they like from the DVD. It IS expensive but some buy it.

But it should always be the photographers choice to offer this or not.

DIPics

rander3127 said:

dipics said:

Having worked in that business a long time ago (it hasn't changed
much), the copyrights are ALWAYS with the photographer. The
contract generally allows limited use to the school for yearbooks
and such.

Click to expand...

--Once a photog sells their services to a client, ANY product's
ownership arising out of that contract should reside solely with
the client, i.e., the school in the case of a school photo. Why is
it photogs get to retain ownership of that when (for instance)
someone working for a drug company creates a new drug they do not
have ANY rights to it?
Photography is a product, nothing more.

Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to an opinion, and, as I recall reading, your country agrees with you. I don't, and my country doesn't.

Oh. Scientists working for drug companies aim for the most favorable contract terms they can get. Some get great terms. Some don't.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

dipics said:

I have no problem at all with a photographer selling his rights.
But, it is his call. I for example will sell a DVD with full sized
wedding photos on it. My clients can purchase this DVD in addition
(not seperately from) any package for a fairly high price. It
comes with a letter from me granting rights to the couple to print
whatever they like from the DVD. It IS expensive but some buy it.

But it should always be the photographers choice to offer this or not.

Click to expand...

Of course, a private contract between parties can be made however the parties agree. I paid heavily for all the negatives and rights to pictures taken by a professional photographer of both my children's weddings.

But in the case of the school pictures I think the parents need to be made more aware of any rights they are signing away when they sign the permission form. Who own the copyrights and whether they can copy an image for their own use. IIRC this was not done when my kids were in school. Maybe it's different in some places now.

After all, if you buy a music CD you can make copies for your own use, say to have a copy for your car. And the recording industry is quite restrictive.

--mamallama

dipics said:

I must apologize. The above was a cut and paste from a letter I
received from the PP of A. I didn’t mean to imply that I had
anything to do with the action.

Click to expand...

And I should probably have realised - thanks nevertheless for posting it!

--
Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde

dipics said:

If you do any photography professionally, you should join them
yourself. They are a great group and do a lot of good for
photography and photographers.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they make you look like a giant douche who can't accept someone doesn't want to o with their little scam.