copyright

Kinz

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I've started using a new photo place to print my photos that does a really good job. I was matting them to get ready for a show, and I noticed on the back of the photo it has the title of my photo, his company name (as the printer I assume), and underneath that is says "copyright © 2009". I know after reading a bunch of stuff on-line about copyrights of photos, that as soon as the shutter clicks, the photo is copyrighted by the photographer. But having the photo say his company name and "copyright" bothers me. Should I be concerned? Thanks
 
Yes, and never use that printer again if he wants to claim your work as belonging to himself.
 
I dont think he is trying to claim his work as your own, but I dont really like the printing company putting their name on the back. Mine put MY business name, and copyright on there, plus the file name. (I use Millers, WHCC, and ProDPI)
 
I would definitely be concerned, but approach him first. I would ask that he put my name in front of the copyright, and "printed by" in front of his name. If he refused to do this, then inform him that he has just lost a customer.
 
You should have a lawyer send him a letter addressing his copyright infringement. It is illegal for him to do what he did unless you have some deal with him. The copyright on those images belong to you period.

A friend just went through this with someone.

Stop using him, obtain any materials he has of yours and have a letter sent to him so he knows you're not screwing around. On all images he printed black out all of his information.
 
Whatever you do talk with the printer first. Sounds like a misunderstanding. Best way to cure all and end all copyright infringement is to get the images copyrighted. It is cheap and easy. Rule # 14: Keep the sharks (lawyers) out of it. They are generally useless in copyright cases.

Love & Bass
 
Thanks for the answers and replies. I think I'll have a talk with him about it. Craig, isn't a photo actually copyrighted when the shutter clicks, and there is really no need for a registered copyright unless I am going to put it in a paper, magazine, etc? Either way, I will talk to him about it and see if my name can be put next to the "copyright ©" symbol, or at least, not his!
 
I thought I was ok, but then I read this from the link you sent: :Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the author who created​
the work." So now I'm wondering who is considered the author, me or the printer (lab). I'll talk to him about this. Thanks everybody.
 
I thought I was ok, but then I read this from the link you sent: :Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the author who created​
the work." So now I'm wondering who is considered the author, me or the printer (lab). I'll talk to him about this. Thanks everybody.

The photographer created the work, therefore the photographer owns the copyright and it is automatic from the time of creation. Registering copyright just makes it easier to prove, but is not required. The printer is copying your work with your permission but ownership of the copyright does NOT change. It still belongs with the photographer.

skieur
 
The photographer created the work, therefore the photographer owns the copyright and it is automatic from the time of creation. Registering copyright just makes it easier to prove, but is not required. The printer is copying your work with your permission but ownership of the copyright does NOT change. It still belongs with the photographer.

skieur
At least in the US, registering the copyright has to do with what an attorney can file suit for: recovery of any profits made by the infringer from the infringement plus court costs and attorney fees. In other words big money. Average awards on the order of $100,000 per image. I followed one where the photographer was awarded $12,000,000 for 7 infringed images or over $1.7M per.

If the copyright is not registered they (attorneys) can only sue for a few hundred dollars at most and will tell you they aren't interested in taking your case and to handle it yourself in small claims court.

At any rate I agree with Sarah.
 
At least in the US, registering the copyright has to do with what an attorney can file suit for: recovery of any profits made by the infringer from the infringement plus court costs and attorney fees. In other words big money. Average awards on the order of $100,000 per image. I followed one where the photographer was awarded $12,000,000 for 7 infringed images or over $1.7M per.

If the copyright is not registered they (attorneys) can only sue for a few hundred dollars at most and will tell you they aren't interested in taking your case and to handle it yourself in small claims court.

At any rate I agree with Sarah.

Getting the judgement is one thing. I wonder how easy or how difficult it is, to actually collect.

skieur
 
Getting the judgement is one thing. I wonder how easy or how difficult it is, to actually collect.

skieur
That varies from case to case. The main point isn't the monitary award. The point is to illustrate to businesses that it costs more to infringe than to contact the copyright owner and reach an acceptable license agreement.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top