# Question about copyright and rights



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

I learned something new about how the photog business works today with copyright (and forum) infringments.

After thinking about it some, the right here, that is being protected, is a copy.

I was just wondering why there are no rights for the original.

In other words, why can you copy an image of a celebrity, then have it protected, sell it, use it, whatever you wish, 
but you don't owe the celebrity for the original, which without them, you wouldn't be able to copy.

That doesn't seem right. If you make money of my image, then you should pay me for it, especially since you can protect your own right to use and sell that image.

Just wondering why the value of an image is not recognized until it becomes a copy of the original.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

It's preventing a copy of the original or giving away the right to make a copy of the image. 

Models do get paid to model. If you don't sign the model release I can't use your image to make any money off of, can't place it on the internet or show it as a sample either. 
I am not about to photograph very many people who won't sign a release. Otherwise my prices would increase dramatically in order for me to make the millions that I am making now.


----------



## Kayak (Sep 11, 2012)

You raise a very interesting issue from a unique perspective.  What no man has created, no man can copyright.  The body, the landscape, the sun, etc. are not created by people, and therefore can not be copyright.  Those images created by people by choosing the time, light, and other influences to create something unique can be copyright.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Well if models sign a release, then why can you take a pic of Brad pit stumbling and sell it to the tabloids and make money?
Nobody paid Brad, and he is the one with the brusies. For that matter why would someone's beautiful pasture that gets photographed all the time also have some type of protection.
It just seems oddly one sided. You can take my pic and sell it, but nobody else, including me, can take your pic and make money with it, and it's a picture of me.
Something is very wrong with that...


----------



## unpopular (Sep 11, 2012)

Copyright as we know it deals with creative works. You need to _create_ something in order to copyright it. There are laws concerning compensation for endorsement and commercial use of personal image, but that is not really a "copyright" issue in teh same sense. You can'y 'copyright' your likeness, but you can control how your likeness will be used to some extent.

On the other hand, editorial use is not protected. You can't sue a photographer for merely documenting the fact that you were at a given place. But you can sue a company who uses that image in a way to promote a product.

As I had said in the street photography thread, it's one thing to say "Unpopular was drinking a Coke at the parade", it's another thing to say "Be a dirty hippy: drink Coke".

But the fact that I was at a parade drinking a coke is just a matter of fact and I cannot expect any protection if someone chooses to document it. All of this would be the same for a celebrity. A tabloid newspaper can make all the nasty comments it wants on a celebrity's attire, the parade is a public place and the fact that he or she was there is a matter of fact; but Coke cannot use that celebrity's likeness to endorse it's products without his or her permission.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

First of all, don't confuse copyright and usage rights.  Copyright is the inherent right of ownership by [usually] the artist of a work.  In theory, even if you have taken a photograph which you had no right to take, you still have copyright over the image.  Usage rights is a whole different issue.  For instance, your drunk celebrity question relates to journalistic usage; under most western law (varying somewhat by country) almost any image can be used by in journalism.  There is "fair usage" which is an area that I'm not going to get into since in the US it has two many differences form Canadian law for me to comment on.  

The main right that a photographer or photographer's client is concerned with is usage rights.  That is, what can the person do with the image that he has licenesed (Note:  you don't normally buy an image, you are licensed or given the right to use an image or group of images in the same way you are when you buy a software application).  In a typical situation, say a family portrait shoot, I grant the client unlimited printing rights,  the right to post the images on personal websites/Facebook etc, but no other rights.  In other words, even though they may have paid several hundred dollars for their family pictures, all they can do is print them (assuming they bought digital files) and show them to people.  They CANNOT edit them or alter the images in any way, shape or form.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Here. Spend some time reading about it. ASMP is a great resource for these questions.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Thanks yall I will go read about it. It just seems so simple even in semantic terms. You "took" the picture, but you didn't pay for it. You took it.

I "took" a pack of peanuts out of the rack at the store, if I didn't pay for it, it would be illegal. (and stealing) because the peanuts have value.

"Took" is "Took", except apparently in photography, and I just wonder how that ever came to be.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> ..."Took" is "Took", except apparently in photography, and I just wonder how that ever came to be.


----------



## KmH (Sep 11, 2012)

You don't 'take' a photograph, you 'make' a photograph.

US copyright is federal law and the specifics are right here - U.S. Copyright Office

Relative to online copyright issues you need to explore that portion of US copyright law that covers the *Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
and the related *Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA.

Model/Property release law is state law, so here in the US there are 50 somewhat different versions.

People often get trademark and copyright confused. If you want to learn about US trademark law visit www.uspto.gov

There is also an international copyright agreement, the *Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works*, that has been around for 126 years now and has been signed by 160+ countries worldwide. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention


----------



## amolitor (Sep 12, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> After thinking about it some, the right here, that is being protected, is a copy.
> 
> ...
> 
> Just wondering why the value of an image is not recognized until it becomes a copy of the original.



The word "copyright" is about the right to make copies, basically. Whether or not the original is a "copy" of some other thing is irrelevant. While many photographs might be considered a "copy" of some real thing, the same is not true about a novel, for instance. Some sculptures and paintings are "copies" of something, and some are not.

I'm pretty sure you're just chain-yanking here, though.


----------



## Designer (Sep 12, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> You "took" the picture, but you didn't pay for it.



I don't "take" pictures, I CREATE them.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 12, 2012)

I havent read that stuff yet Im building a deck but copy implies that it is a duplicate of something else, which it is and a cheap version compared to reality. 
It's a copy of something that is valuable, (like the reflection of light that comes off of Brad Pits face when he walks down the street, which is the original)
That light coming off Brads face is what is of value, all the time. When you copy it, you get rights to protect your copy, but Brad has no rights to protect his original contribution...

This is common sense unless of course you might have to pay for what was once free...........

Not yankin here just askin a real question, because it doesnt seem to be a level playing field at all.

I know THIS, if I was Brad Pit, and you took my picture and sold it to the globe for 25K, I dont care HOW much money I have, YOU are going to PAY ME, if I have to sue you to get it, for taking my wares, (which he sells for 20 million a pop in movies) and using them to profit.

In other words you should have to have a contractual agreement with Brad to use his ware and sell them, just like you contract a wedding shoot and only allow prints of YOUR copy. 

It just isnt right, it's just not right.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 12, 2012)

Actually Brad can give it a go, but if he's in a public place in the USA when he's photographed, he's pretty much out of luck.

Anyways, this has almost nothing to do with "copyright" per se. What's in play here is whether or not you own images of yourself. Laws vary, but there are generally pretty broad cases where you do not control your likeness. Whether or not you think that's "fair" is irrelevant. Celebrities and politicians have tested them fairly thoroughly at this point, and we pretty much know in any jurisdiction when you do, and when you do not, own your likeness. Well, *I* don't, but the case law available is pretty thorough and clear.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 12, 2012)

Yeah well "for profit" is the key thing here. Sure, you can take a picture of Brad all you wish, but if you SELL IT, you are using HIS wares for PROFIT, and he should be compensated for it, and I doubt there is a court in the land that wouldnt agree with that.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 12, 2012)

YoBenny's parents hold copyright to YoBenny.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 12, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Yeah well "for profit" is the key thing here. Sure, you can take a picture of Brad all you wish, but if you SELL IT, you are using HIS wares for PROFIT, and he should be compensated for it, and I doubt there is a court in the land that wouldnt agree with that.



True, except for being completely wrong. People sell pictures of celebrities all the time without compensating said celebrities.

Like I said, the case law is clear and thorough on this point. There are contexts where I can take a picture of Brad Pitt and sell it, and he can ***** all he wants but will get nothing from me. There are also contexts where he can get quite a lot of money from me.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 12, 2012)

For that matter, once you start suing people, he should go after Canon and Nikon too, because without their tools, you wouldnt be able to "harvest" a profit from his reflection.

And then sue you AGAIN, when the Globe takes your photo and uses it with a completely false statement about Brad to "slander" him, you become part of a slander suit.

I just see all kinds of legal issues with stealing pictures from people and them making a profit from it.....


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 12, 2012)

And not to mention the pressure brought to bear on a llifestyle when the Paparazzi force you to change the way you live to stop them from profiting on your image.

It's just slap full of wrong things and mistreatment of people for profit.

It just seems interesting that phtogs are SO INTENSE about protecting THEIR possessions, but think nothing of Stealing them to get them hehehehehe.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

In fact, hardly ever a photographer is going to be held liable. All the photographer did was take a picture of a celebrity in a public place, he or she is selling the _documentation_ of that fact, not the celebrity's image. It's when companies use that image for _endorsement_ which gets you into trouble. The photographer might be named in the suite, but only because Brad's lawyers are going to name everyone remotely involved with the image. But by the time it gets to court, only the suit against the company will have standing.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

Benny - there is what the law says, how the law is interpreted, and perhaps how the law should be. Those are all different things.

If celebrities could sue photographers for their likeness, don't you think they would have? But the fact remains, photographers, even paparazzi photographers and tabloid newspapers, have first amendment rights and nobody has an expectation of privacy in public; especially celebrities.

Defamation is another matter, but doesn't apply to photographers until they start altering stuff around. Even then, there is the reasonable person test. If a photographer photoshopped Brad Pit having sexual intercourse with a horse on the moon, not Brad, nor anyone else, can do anything about it.

And the first thing a tabloid would claim is that no reasonable person would actually believe what they print is true. This argument has already been successfully tested with political cartoons, though I'll have to look it up, and I am guessing that in the past tabloids have used it as well.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 12, 2012)

Yeah I was gonna say that probably the only legal course is to sue the companies who buy the images so there is no profit for the photog because the companies wont buy them.

No matter the legalities, which anyone who enjoys a hit of weed now and then knows are trumped up garbage many times, no matter the legalities, it's stealing.

Nobody buys the "documentation" they buy the image, because thats what "endorses" their tabloid and encourages sales, there is no difference from that and Wheaties boxes.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

I see what you're saying but there is no was to objectively come to that conclusion. What makes tabloids legally different from AP or Reuters? If Angelina Jolie is at a benefit for African children, should AP be protected by the first amendment, but the National Inquirer not? What if the National Inquirer bought the same image from AP which ran in the New York Times? Who do you sue then?

What difference does it make if you are reporting on a recent breakup, bad fashion choice or gained weight verses how much money a celebrity donated to a charitable cause? In the end, it's all about our idolization, our need for heroes and our need for our heroes to be human like the rest of us.


----------



## Dao (Sep 12, 2012)

Let say Brad in a public swimming pool and talking to a young lady and just happen there is a frog near by.   Person A take photos of the event, Person B document the event in words.

Person A own the right to the photos he created.  Person B own the right to the story he created/documented.

A publisher like the photos, he pay Person A for the right to publish the photos.  And the same publisher like the story, he pay Person B for the right to publish the work.

Should Person A and B need to pay Brad?  or the young lady?  or even the frog?   I do not think so.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 12, 2012)

Well, first off, yes, they should all be required to pay Brad, if they make a profit from what they took from him, be it text, photo, doesnt matter, if they sell something that would be worthless unless Brad Pits words or images were involved in it, then Brad should be compensated for his contribution.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 12, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> YoBenny's parents hold copyright to YoBenny.


The question is... would they want to?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

What about the president and members of congress? Do we need to pay the government or individual politicians to quote them?

What about stories about bank robberies? Do we need to pay the bank robber to report that story, or print his image?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 12, 2012)

What if I take a picture of Brad's car? Does your marvelous re-interpretation of all that is good and just extend to personal property? I don't see why not. Can I take a picture of a publicly owned property? Probably I should pay a tax for that, to compensate the People At Large for "copying" the road, or school, or whatever it is.

Now, thanks to you, I can only take pictures of myself and my own possessions. Well done. Way to stimulate artistic work.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 12, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Well, first off, yes, they should all be required to pay Brad, if they make a profit from what they took from him, be it text, photo, doesnt matter, if they sell something that would be worthless unless Brad Pits words or images were involved in it, then Brad should be compensated for his contribution.


Ok. I'll play here. I am a sucker.

Planes hit the World Trade Center in NYC. Person A takes a video of it; Person B takes a photograph of it and Person C writes about it. 
The publisher wants to put the 3 things together on their website and the front page of The NY Times. 
Who should pay the WTC, drivers of the planes and people who were in those buildings in order to publish those images? 
Because that's exactly what you are saying here. That the persons who contributed to that story should be compensated for it. 
You are completely obliterating the freedom of the press here.


----------



## Dao (Sep 12, 2012)

It will create a serious problem.  Nobody can write a Disney world tour book without paying Disney.  In fact, TPF now need to pay Brad and  Disney (and the frog) since TPF make profit from the forum.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

At that point, Leek, should the terrorists or their families be entitled to compensation? I've seen Osama Bin Laden's photo printed a few times in profitable newspapers without his consent.

They should probably sue the FBI, also for releasing those photos without his consent.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 12, 2012)

Oh crap, we're talking about Br*d P*tt here. Now we all owe him money. DAMN IT.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

I only said "Brad", the rest is inferred. By by Texas Justice, that should count too I guess.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> At that point, Leek, should the terrorists or their families be entitled to compensation? I've seen Osama Bin Laden's photo printed a few times in profitable newspapers without his consent.
> 
> They should probably sue the FBI, also for releasing those photos without his consent.


Very true!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 12, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Oh crap, we're talking about Br*d P*tt here. Now we all owe him money. DAMN IT.



I REALLY don't want to know why you would owe Brad money. It's just not a good mental picture.


----------



## KmH (Sep 12, 2012)

Usage of a photo is separate from copyright.

That photo of Brad taken while he was out in public that is licensed to accompany a story about what Brad was doing out in public, is called an editorial use. Think about how newspapers use photos of people without getting them to sign releases.

Now if that same photo of Brad is used in an advertisement of some type, that would be a commercial use and unless Brad had given his permission (released) for his likeness to be used that way, Brad could sue the ad agency for using his likeness without his consent.

I mentioned before that model/property release law is state law. States that have a large entertainment industry, like California and New York, have strong 'Right of Publicity' laws that give well known people a bit more control over use of their likeness than us regular folks.

Often the issue becomes - What constitutes being 'well known'? No doubt, Brad Pitt is well known.


----------



## IByte (Sep 12, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Usage of a photo is separate from copyright.
> 
> That photo of Brad taken while he was out in public that is licensed to accompany a story about what Brad was doing out in public, is called an editorial use. Think about how newspapers use photos of people without getting them to sign releases.
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention Brad Pitt suing.  Sometime ago on TMZ,there was a gay website that used his photo(maybe some other celebrity), he sued and site was taken down.  I doubt he authorized his photo for that website.


----------



## Designer (Sep 12, 2012)

Yo, Benny!  Your celebrity example does not hold water based on the assumption that you are taking a picture of him in public, and he is not working for you or any film company.  If he was "acting" when you took the picture, then he would have some rights to the use thereof.  Simply walking on the street gives nobody any particular "rights" to their image.  We see this all the time in the tabloids.  The photographers are paid by the publisher, and the celebrity gets nothing.

If your reasoning held any validity, then all components of a work of art would be entitled to some portion of the procedes.  It would be as if an architect had to pay a royalty to the plotter company for the commercial use of his design.  Or pencils, paintbrushes, markers, paper, bricks, lumber, concrete, glass, paint, and all the rest.

Relax, Benny, and just accept it.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 12, 2012)

for your listening pleasure...and almost relevant!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 14, 2012)

for your viewing pleasure ... and irrelevant entirely


----------



## Buckster (Sep 14, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> And not to mention the pressure brought to bear on a llifestyle when the Paparazzi force you to change the way you live to stop them from profiting on your image.
> 
> It's just slap full of wrong things and mistreatment of people for profit.
> 
> It just seems interesting that phtogs are SO INTENSE about protecting THEIR possessions, but think nothing of Stealing them to get them hehehehehe.


This is the post that has made me decide to go to your profile so that I can add you to my Ignore List.  I can't take ignorance/trolling of this magnitude.  Have a nice life, or whatever.


----------

