Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

42

If it's a crowded, public place - it's often perceived as a tripping hazard by many a security guard, possibly even a weapon. Its also possible that if its photographing public art, they don't want you to "steal" it. There are times were it makes sense to try to get permission if you need to a long exposure. Depending on the person, they may ask you to ...


40

Legally, and in typical business practices, this is completely true — the photographer has no obligation to give you RAW files, unless the contract says otherwise. Presumably, the photographer will sell you prints of her work. This is how she makes her living, after all. Kind of harsh to discover after it is too late, but if you wanted something else, you ...


33

Before I start pontificating, a disclaimer... My experience is necessarily US-centrc as that's where I live and work. Over the years these methods have worked equally well for me in large cities with jackboot-style authorities (LA, New York, etc.), as well as smaller cities (potentially where the authorities have less oversight and more willingness to shoot ...


31

Simply put you don't have to do anything to "copyright" your photographs, as the creator the image is yours, you automatically own the copyright, which is short for the right to copy. You can optionally register your copyright (via the lengthy process in your link, varies from country to country). All this does is make it easier to claim damages if your ...


24

I think adding your copyright info to the meta of the images is more important than a watermark. I understand both sides of the "to watermark, or not to watermark" discussion, and both have valid points. But more important is that you should always added copyright and contact info to your file's meta data. There's really no excuse not to - it doesn't ...


24

A photograph is no more its subject than a descriptive paragraph would be. It has no depth, no shape, just a one dimensional recording of light. In practice, the situation you've describe is legal because to make it illegal would be absolutely ridiculous. Should authors pay royalties for describing landmarks? What if someone builds a model of a train ...


21

I think probably they do deter misuse. Psychologically, using an plain image without credit is a different beast than using one with COPYRIGHT ROLAND SHAW staring you in the face (or taking active steps to remove the watermark). Also, there's more opportunities for people in the chain who might not otherwise think of it to say "hey, do we have permission for ...


21

I have also run in to this problem a couple of times, again security guards asking me to clear the tripod away when no signage indicated they were not permitted. In both situations I complied as requested and then went home and followed up by finding the management of the establishment online and emailing them to ask why. In both circumstances they ...


21

Background: I write as a traveller and not a formal expert, but I have made 50+ flight "legs" on either international carriers or on local carriers within Asia in the last 4 or so years. I take many photos out of airline windows and make a point of reading the rules that each airline has established. I use both a DSLR and smaller point and shoot cameras - ...


19

Legal Disclaimer The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question. Since the questioner indicated they were located in the U.S., this answer assumes ...


18

For commercial use, you have to pay. Period. Maybe not much. If it's for commercial use, the "too poor to pay" line is fiction.


17

In most countries copyright registration is not required, and copyright is granted by the act of publication. In the US, voluntary registration is available, which is needed to sue for infringement, and gives the copyright holder more possibilities when collecting damages. As far as the scenarios go, both will include elements of the original work, so they ...


17

I'd suggest contacting the photographer to see what their "specified manner" might be, as a matter of courtesy. But the actual legal requirements are (by design) quite reasonable for reuse. If you read the actual license terms in their full, legal-language form, the key relevant point appears to be: Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; ...


17

IANAL, and this advice is U.S.-centric 'cause that's where I live and work... but this is how my lawyer explained it to me for my own photography business... If the picture was taken on private property and the store is identifiable, you do need to get a location release in order to be able to sell it. If, however, the store is not identifiable, you can go ...


17

As somebody who is interested in photography as a hobby -- not a profession, and therefore not worried about making income from it -- I first consider who is asking. I've had a few requests from groups I am happy to support: mostly local parks and local wildlife preserves. I know they have a small budget but as I frequent them (often for free) and get lots ...


16

Main issues that are related to usage of your pictures are the following: Copyright In most circumstances, you own copyright to photos you take, and can do whatever you want with them. The exception is either when you've assigned copyright to someone else (paper you shoot for, for example), or when you'd infrige someone else's copyright. For example, when ...


16

The copyright belongs to the photographer unless otherwise specified in writing. However, depending on local laws you may not have the right to take pictures of some subjects, and may only have permission to sell your images of certain subjects with expressed consent.


16

This varies widely based on jurisdiction, and there are widespread misconceptions about it. The photographer is normally the sole owner of the copyright in the photograph. However, local personality rights (aka right of publicity) may limit the use of an image without permission of the subject. Personality rights vary from nation to nation and even within a ...


15

Pricing details, even if you are doing it for free Session details, when/where/etc What happens if you can't make the session What happens if you lose the images Model Release if you want to use the photos to promote yourself Those are the biggies.


15

The photographer retains the copyright unless he or she specifically assigns them it to someone else. However, usage is a different matter. The photographer may not use an image of you -- where you are readily recognizable -- without your release. This is called a "model release." If you did not sign a model release, the best way to proceed might be to tell ...


14

I use a D90, and i took some advice from Ken Rockwell, and put a copyright notice in the camera's comment field, which is stamped into the EXIF data of every image.


14

Google finds over 900000 photos of the Transamerica building in San Francisco. If you are planning to take a photo of a single landmark building, in a country where these trademark laws apply, and plan to use that photo commercially in that country - you should probably approach the owner of the building and ask their consent. For important legal questions ...


14

You're entering into a contract - you agree to follow their rules, and they agree to let you into the concert. Any event that requires a ticket or is held on private property isn't truly a "public" event, and the property holders or event organizers can set their own rules. It's much like this website. Yes, you may use this website for free, and it's ...


14

You absolutely should be paid. And not only that, you absolutely have the right to protect your work. There are dangers associated with offering "free use" of your work, as once you do, you can never really tell how far your work may be distributed "for free". The company you license it to may turn around and license another company to create some design ...


13

There is one very important distinction to be made: Do you want to seek penalty damages for copyright infringement? By US copyright law, any original content (and special derivative works of copyrighted material) are automatically copyrighted by the creator. There are specific instances in which even if you are the creator, the copyright is owned by someone ...


13

Generally speaking, the US Copyright Office's terse answer is a complete reply: the copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer. The owner of the property may also have some rights which could limit the photographer's commercial use of the material (including, for example, selling it to you). I know one old photo seems like a little thing and it ...


12

In general, the copyright is held by the photographer taking the photo (with a few minor exceptions, such as if they've a contract which transfers the rights to another person, such as their employer). The rights holder may choose to licence their work to you, either in exchange for a fee (something like a stock image library) or sometimes without a fee ...


12

In the United States, this falls into the gray area of "you might need a property release" (which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court other than with buildings that are trademarked). The best solution is to likely include a photo release as part of your standard contract; buyers likely won't even flinch and you'll be protected from a legal ...


12

I belive that tripods in general are understood as a sign that you take photography seriously, especially in museums and culturally important places, where tripod-equipped (=professional) photographers may be considered a threat to the ability of institutions to sell postcards. (Or by stealing the soul of art they possess.) And of course you have to bear in ...


11

I am assuming that this is in reference to United States Law. Under US law, a copyright is assigned at creation to the employer or person for whom the work is created if it is done as a "work for hire". This means that you, as the photographer, are not the owner of the copyright. If you instead use a contract that gives you the copyright, you are then ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible