Copyright infringement or overreaction?

lisafx · Dec 30, 2002

Mike,

I can totally understand your position here about people using the church for profit. Fortunately we are a small church and have not had to deal with people doing that type of thing there. The fact is that the $1 I charge for the reprints goes to reimburse the church for the ink and paper they have covered. It doesn't go into my pocket. The only money that would ever go into my pocket would be for enlarged reprints, which so far, in the last year have totalled exactly NO, count them (0) orders.

You are pretty quick to accuse me of being some sort of opportunist trying to make a buck off my church at the expense of God and old ladies. I don't know who you're talking about, but it sure isn't me. I am not some parasitic photographer who has joined the church as a way to make money. I am a longtime member who volunteers, not only my time as a photographer, but also have volunteered every Friday for 5 years as an unpaid office assistant and countless other ways that my family and I contribute to our church, not out of obligation or hope for personal gain, but out of love and gratitude for the spiritual solace it has given us for many years.

Before you jump on your high horse, you really should make sure it isn't an ass.

Mike said:
lisafx said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

DaveFultzJr · Dec 30, 2002

Lisafx,

I think most of us understand how you feel about your work being taken. At this point I'd think I'd chalk this one incident to experience, and take action to prevent it from happening again. There's been a lot of good ideas suggested.

If you really want to confront the infringer, I'd just say something about how the next time she needs a print let you know and you'll take care of it. I'd be very polite and helpful sounding.

She may have or may not have had petty larcency on her mind when she took the print, and as mentioned earlier, I'd bet that if really gave it any thought, she'd be embarrarassed regarding her actions. Or maybe not...

Anyway, I'd consider it water under the bridge, and instead take the experience as the cost of a lesson regarding how to protect your work. I'd just keep my mouth shut and my eyes open around her, for the time being.

lisafx · Dec 30, 2002

Thanks for the useful advice Dave

and everyone else who had constructive advice. I have been feeling a little bit flamed here, but there has been a lot of really good information and I agree with all those who said it's not a big deal, but more of a learning experience.
That's what life is about, after all.

Dave Fultz said:
Lisafx,

I think most of us understand how you feel about your work being
taken. At this point I'd think I'd chalk this one incident to
experience, and take action to prevent it from happening again.
There's been a lot of good ideas suggested.

If you really want to confront the infringer, I'd just say
something about how the next time she needs a print let you know
and you'll take care of it. I'd be very polite and helpful sounding.

She may have or may not have had petty larcency on her mind when
she took the print, and as mentioned earlier, I'd bet that if
really gave it any thought, she'd be embarrarassed regarding her
actions. Or maybe not...

Anyway, I'd consider it water under the bridge, and instead take
the experience as the cost of a lesson regarding how to protect
your work. I'd just keep my mouth shut and my eyes open around her,
for the time being.

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

Sir_Q · Dec 30, 2002

I assuming the offending picture could actually be of the infringer, or the infringer’s children or grandchildren. I don't think I could bring myself to question someone or label them as a thief regarding giving away pictures of their children that I took, no matter if I had the right to. Would you still be offended if he/she had the picture printing on a coffee mug for your pastor? Do you know if the infringer was aware of the services you offer? She had to pay someone right?

lisafx said:
Thanks for the useful advice Dave and everyone else who had
constructive advice. I have been feeling a little bit flamed here,
but there has been a lot of really good information and I agree
with all those who said it's not a big deal, but more of a learning
experience.
That's what life is about, after all.

dave clark28980 · Dec 30, 2002

lisafx,

I read about one third of the replies so far and want to add a thought to the good responses already posted.

I would suggest that you not mention anything about it in the service announcements or the bulletin at this time. I doubt that the woman who copied the pictures had innocent intentions and would be mortified and shamed in front of her friends and the church if you said anything publicly.

Let it go this time and next time before you do your work post a generic notice. This will distance the incident from the woman and no one will be hurt.

David

dave clark28980 · Dec 30, 2002

Correction.

I said, "I doubt that the woman who copied the pictures had innocent intentions"

I should have said that she did have innocent intentions.

David Clark

dave clark said:
lisafx,

I read about one third of the replies so far and want to add a
thought to the good responses already posted.

I would suggest that you not mention anything about it in the
service announcements or the bulletin at this time. I doubt that
the woman who copied the pictures had innocent intentions and would
be mortified and shamed in front of her friends and the church if
you said anything publicly.

Let it go this time and next time before you do your work post a
generic notice. This will distance the incident from the woman and
no one will be hurt.

David

Ed (;¬ >) · Dec 30, 2002

Lisa mentioned nothing about trying to make money, nor did she say what she did with the nominal fee she charged for copies—just as you charged a fee for your copies, Isabel.

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

Isabel Cutler said:
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

Ed (;¬ >) · Dec 30, 2002

Ill informed, judgemental, arrogant, uncharitable, facts wrong, leaping to conclusions, ill tempered, ill mannered, boorish, vulgar; not bad for a single paragraph. Perhaps even a new record.

I was almost tempted to add holier-than-thou but there's nothing even remotely holy here.

-Ed

Mike said:
Do you ask permission to take the pictures of all the folks you
take pictures of? If you snap a group picture of person X,Y and Z,
and then then sell photos, for a profit, to person Z, without
permission of person X and Y, I don't think thats legal, or ethical
either. So if you wanna crunch some old ladies balls about copying
your picture, make sure you get signed releases from everybody who
ever appears on any shot you reprint for profit. There's a reason
the faces of people who appear in arena shots have their faces
blurred out. It's also lame that you tithe the "work" but not the
result to the church. And then advertise reprints for a buck in
the bulletin. How utterly tacky. I often see people
(chicropractors, builders, stock brokers and now photographers)
trying to gain business by doing some minor work for the church.
They consider it a way to network for new business. Always makes
me sick.

Ed (;¬ >) · Dec 30, 2002

Hi, David!

Yes that would be the charitable thing to do and fortunately you're in the majority here with that advice.

I'm not so charitable, though, and think that the minister needs to tend his flock.

=Ed

dave clark said:
I said, "I doubt that the woman who copied the pictures had
innocent intentions"

I should have said that she did have innocent intentions.

David Clark

dave clark said:

lisafx,

I read about one third of the replies so far and want to add a
thought to the good responses already posted.

I would suggest that you not mention anything about it in the
service announcements or the bulletin at this time. I doubt that
the woman who copied the pictures had innocent intentions and would
be mortified and shamed in front of her friends and the church if
you said anything publicly.

Let it go this time and next time before you do your work post a
generic notice. This will distance the incident from the woman and
no one will be hurt.

David

Click to expand...

Mike Fitzgerald · Dec 30, 2002

Ed (;¬ > ) wrote (a while back):

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Ed (;¬ >) said:

Don't keep it bottled up, mate!

Click to expand...

Glad to have obliged, and good to see you're enjoying the vintage!!

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Ill informed, judgemental, arrogant, uncharitable, facts wrong,
leaping to conclusions, ill tempered, ill mannered, boorish,
vulgar; not bad for a single paragraph. Perhaps even a new record.

Fair summary, I'd say. Cheers! [clink!]

Mike (STILL taking no responsibility for namesakes) Fitzgerald

my wong · Dec 31, 2002

lisa,

don't forget to also add that you are available for taking pictures for birthdays, anniversaries, christenings, weddings, etc. (i.e., if you do these things).

My

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Camera Fact Sheets
http://www.photoxels.com
'A Smile Is Forever'

lisafx said:
I couldn't agree more. Based on the excellent advice of the folks
on this forum, I will probably let this one go, but I will be using
a watermark in the future. That should clear up any misconceptions
people may have and also prevent copying. I had ordered a stamp
that was pretty strongly worded, but I am wondering if something
tactful listing my copyright, phone number and offer to do reprints
& enlargements would be more tactful and still get the job done?

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

my wong · Dec 31, 2002

lisa,

a thought just popped into my head as I read the give and take -- and Mr. Stacey's hilarious post -- and what I am suggesting is:

"turn the other cheek"

as in, make an enlargement of that very picture and you give it out to the iintended party (of course, with the copyright plainly visible on the back of the print). They will see the quality difference and who knows, maybe they will show this to the 'offender' and that will get the message across...

My

lisafx said:
I completely agree. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not making
any money off these photos. None. Zilch. Nor am I looking to
make money off the ones I post at church. Just as people said,
they are posted for the enjoyment of the membership. I just don't
want them taken and copied and enlarged without my permission and
then given away to others as though they are the property of the
copier and giver.

ianR · Dec 31, 2002

James Mcneill Whistler in his trial with Ruskin:

In the most important exchange of the trial, Ruskin's defense asked in contempt: "The labor of two days is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?" Whistler responded: "No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime."
regards
Ian

Ed (;¬ > ) said:
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.

Mike Fitzgerald said:

Shutter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--
6900

Mike Price · Dec 31, 2002

The company that actually made the copies is guilty of copyright infringement.

How about asking the lady (nicely) where she had the copies made? Then bill them for making copies of your copyrighted image. If they dispute the idea, remind them that the onus is on them to ensure that they have permission from the copyright owner. Whatever happens it will probably be easiest to back down, but the initial threat will make them a lot more wary of infringing copyright in future.

By asking the lady where she had the copies made, you can draw her attention to the copyright issue without directly accusing her.

There are plenty of variations on this theme that may be more apt in your situation: it's just the concept I'm suggesting.

Rick Pali · Dec 31, 2002

Mike said:
Why not post a copy of the offending photo? Let's see the
brilliance of the composition that requires such protection...

Requires protection? No, every image has copyright protection simply by virtue of being taken. If you don't value what you create, that's your own business.

Rick.

Ed (;¬ >) · Dec 31, 2002

Mike Price said:
The company that actually made the copies is guilty of copyright
infringement.

How about asking the lady (nicely) where she had the copies made?
Then bill them for making copies of your copyrighted image. If they
dispute the idea, remind them that the onus is on them to ensure
that they have permission from the copyright owner. Whatever
happens it will probably be easiest to back down, but the initial
threat will make them a lot more wary of infringing copyright in
future.

By asking the lady where she had the copies made, you can draw her
attention to the copyright issue without directly accusing her.

There are plenty of variations on this theme that may be more apt
in your situation: it's just the concept I'm suggesting.

Ed (;¬ >) · Dec 31, 2002

It's generally a good idea to read as much of it as possible.

Sir_Q said:
I assuming the offending picture could actually be of the
infringer, or the infringer’s children or grandchildren.

No. lisa said the photos were of the people to whom these stolen 'gifts' were presented.

Sir_Q said:
I don't
think I could bring myself to question someone or label them as a
thief regarding giving away pictures of their children that I took,
no matter if I had the right to.

Not at issue. See above.

Sir_Q said:
Would you still be offended if
he/she had the picture printing on a coffee mug for your pastor?
Do you know if the infringer was aware of the services you offer?

It's printed int he bulletin and on the display.

Sir_Q said:
She had to pay someone right?

That's the point. She should have paid Lisa. A couple of folks pointed out (rightly) that the company who did the reprints should have inquired as to the copyright and are just as guilty.

Sir_Q said:
lisafx said:

Thanks for the useful advice Dave and everyone else who had
constructive advice. I have been feeling a little bit flamed here,
but there has been a lot of really good information and I agree
with all those who said it's not a big deal, but more of a learning
experience.
That's what life is about, after all.

Click to expand...

Just consider the source of the criticism. Most of the very negative comments came from those who didn't read or more likely didn't understand your posts. I respect your efforts to support your church. It's more than I would do.

-Ed ( At least I have a positive attitude about my destructive habits. ) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v w/Canon 500D +2 Diopter lens

Ed (;¬ >) · Dec 31, 2002

Mike Fitzgerald said:
Mike Fitzgerald said:

Mike Fitzgerald said:

Don't keep it bottled up, mate!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Glad to have obliged, and good to see you're enjoying the vintage!!

Mike Fitzgerald said:

Ill informed, judgemental, arrogant, uncharitable, facts wrong,
leaping to conclusions, ill tempered, ill mannered, boorish,
vulgar; not bad for a single paragraph. Perhaps even a new record.

Click to expand...

Fair summary, I'd say. Cheers! [clink!]

Mike (STILL taking no responsibility for namesakes) Fitzgerald

Shutter. · Dec 31, 2002

Ummm.....

What blurring of people in arenas? Where do you live and what do you read?

I choose not to respond to the rest of your response as it's just plain silly.

Mike said:
lisafx said:

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

Click to expand...

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

--
Jim Fuglestad

Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase. -Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Gaetan J. · Dec 31, 2002

Steve Cavigliano said:
FWIW, I'd let this one slide. I think it's the Christian, or any
other religion, thing to do.

sure thing, the more religious the less respectfull of others.

--
Gaetan J.

Copyright infringement or overreaction?

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts