Photo Copyright

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Photo Copyright

(or any other creative copyright)

     There was a recent  article in the NYTimes newspaper about a decision by a higher court to limit the "using" other artists (photographers, artists, graphic designers, industrial designers,and the list goes on and on) work. 

     The article can be found below:

     http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/design/richard-prince-lawsuit-focuses-on-limits-of-appropriation.html?_r=1&comments

     What had happened was that an "artist" was taken to court for having used exact works of other artists and not shared in the financial rewards of the "use". We're not talking $ 10.00 toys here;we're talking $ 350,000.00 apiece for each piece of art.

     The current law goes something like this, but it's best for you to read the article:

     If someone uses a current piece of art, photograph, graphic design,and so forth, and creates a varied form of it, that the public can interpret differently from the original piece of art, then that is OK, and the original artist does not get any monetary accommodation or credit.


     Fortunately, the higher court agreed with the artist whose work was "borrowed", and it looks like the case will drag on to the Supreme Court.

    Coincidently, I thought that I'd write about that today. Having been a professional photographer while I also taught for 32 years, this topic was discussed in other courses in out program. However, with the digital era, it's quite "easy" to " take other people's work and modify it.

     I've always asked for permission or given credit where credit was due, whenever I  used other people's work to talk about certain aspects of photography.  I recently made a "faux-pas" (mistake). I used a scanned photo of a poster from a book and then asked for permission from the publisher. I got a terse "take the photo off immediately". I'm sure I could have pursued the issue because the author didi  in fact copy a poster of long-ago closed-down toy company, but I didn't.


  Anyway, one day while I was searching to try and buy antique toys from other places aside from e-Bay, I did a search for "Hubley Toys", and lo-and-behold, I found 1 of my photos on a site. The person was using my photo on 1 of those E-Bay or E-bay licensed sites. The way they work, as far as I understand is that if you do a search for a toy or some other item, you'll get lots of E-Bay results in Google or any other search engine. Follow the list down, and you'll find "other sites". So if you go to one of those sites, they look inconspicuous and innocent enough until you click on a photo. What then happens is that you're "guided" back to E-Bay. Anyway, my photo was on one of these sites to attract people to a particular toy, and my photo was larger than the rest.

     Fortunately, the person who was the owner took down not only the image, but the whole page. As a consequence, I decided to periodically check to see if my photos were used by anyone else. I don't want to boast, but I do take super photos for my blogs and for my e-Bay listings. Sure enough, I found 4 more sites using my photos. I was in a particularly good mood for 1, so I just went elsewhere and forgot which site my photo was on. However for 2 other places, I asked that I get monetary compensation or have the photos taken down. In one "nasty" case, the person has blocked me from the site so I can;t check if my photos are still there. I'll get a friend to check when I have the time. In the 2 other cases, I haven't heard from the 2 people at all, and in 1 place, my photos are still there.  The ironic thing in 1 site is that the site "mildly threatens" anyone they find using their photos, which in this case, some of them 5 of the 11 on a particular page are mine" You just got to laugh at the gaul of this person!

    Now, not everyone is like that, and I have had 3 nice and professional dealings with people.

   1. The small city where I live  requested the use of a photo of a local shopping centre that I had photographed in a 2 hour session to create a long panoramic.  I had sent it to my city councillor for her perusal, and never heard from her again. However, the PR person for the city needed a certain photo and asked for it's usage. The councillor at a meeting must have shown the PR person the photo, which coincidently she happened to be a lawyer. The photo was used it because the shopping centre was being downsized in 1/2 and the demolished portion would be used for new housing. I took the last  complete photo of the shopping centre.

  2. American Pickers contacted me out of the clear blue to ask if they could use my photos. I initially said yes, and was all agog and told everyone. So my sister-in-law says "so did you ask for money?". Ugh, who thought of money! This is American Pickers, and  I watch those 2 guys every change that I get. So I shyly send an e-mail to the person who chose my photos. He wasn;t too happy, buy agreed to a small compensation. I sent him about 6 more photos, but they only used to.

      They're very professional, and I get an e-mail informing me that the particular episode will air on such and such a date. I tell everyone, but in Montreal, I guess the schedule was different. So the 52, 421 friends, relative and acquaintances that I contacted were all upset as my the episode was aired at a different time. Anyway, I get a call from one of the American Pickers production assistants asking if I'd like a DVC copy. Does peanut butter go with jelly on a sandwich? faster than I say thank you, I get the DVD the next day. Are these guys professional or what? Of course, I expected my photos to be on air for about a minute, and I got 4 seconds worth.  Buy hey, I got my 15 minutes of fame as the late Andy Warhol said.

3. Another person last week  e-mailed me asked if he might use my photos and would give me credit. He gave me his website, as well as how and where he would use the photos. I checked out the 2 sites and I figured, that perhaps more than a "credit note as to my name" . I politely mentioned that perhaps either I could be financially compensated, or we could trade his services for my photos. I haven't heard from him, and am disappointed. But that's life.

Anyway, so what I have decided to do lately is to place a slightly opaque "Do Not Copy" on all of my photos from now on. Die to the subtlety of the "Wording", it isn't very hard for any Photoshop "techee" to remove the wording, but at least the note is there. 

If you were to visit my blog on old antique toys today:   http://oldantiquetoys.blogspot.com/ 

you'd see "Do Not Copy" on all of my photos. I'm ambivalent about this, and if I were asked for a good reason to have my photos used, I wouldn't ask for a monetary reward. However, when someone can make money using someone else's effort, then that's another story.

Below are a few examples of what I am talking about. 

I want to apologize to anyone if I've dampened your interest in this blog. Also, if someone out there has any suggestions as to how I can present my work and still safeguard my rites, I'd appreciate that as well. Also, if the writing interferes with the image too much, feel free to inform me.

I don't know if I'l be writing any more instalments this year (2 days left), so if I don't, I'd like to wish each and every one of you a Healthy and Happy New Year to you and your family.

Sincerely,

(Mr.) Stacey Bindman