Could Copyright Have Made A Difference In Custody Battle Over Kids Photos?

from the taker-of-the-photos... dept

The Grumpy Hacker writes in to let us know of a story about a couple in the midst of a divorce who went to court over who gets to own the family's photographs (found PopPhoto.com). Over the 21-year marriage, apparently, the family amassed 7,000 photos, and part of the dispute was over who got to keep them. The judge made the following decision:

The husband gets 75% of the photos or three out of every four on each page of 75 photo albums, DeStefano wrote. His wife gets what's left.

"The court finds that the husband was intricately involved with taking, compiling and cataloging the thousands of photos at issue," DeStefano wrote in a case in which the spouses were identified only by initials.

"He equated his collecting of photographs of family with the hobby of collecting rare books."

If you're wondering why not just make copies, apparently the couple had already paid over $2,000 to scan all the images and have them put onto a CD, but both sides were "unhappy with the quality and demanded originals." It seems like they could have just gone back to whoever scanned the images and demanded higher quality scans, but that's neither here nor there.

What struck me about this is you sort of wonder why no one brought up copyright. Technically, whoever took the photos most likely owned the copyright on those photos, and could claim that the photos were his or her right to own. This is one of the more annoying parts of copyright law, but whoever takes the photo often has a strong claim on the copyright, even if the camera is someone else's (remember that the next time you ask your friend -- or, I guess, spouse -- to take a photo for you). So, I would imagine that if the guy took most of the photos, he could just claim copyright on them and keep them from his ex-wife. In the meantime, though, perhaps we should be thankful that copyright was not used in this particular case -- even if the result seems a little silly. There are services that can duplicate photos (not just scan them), and it seems like this whole situation could have been solved without involving a court at all.

Filed Under: copyright, divorce, photography

UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe

from the welcome-to-your-digital-economy-bill dept

Want to know what happens when you increase the liability of third parties for copyright infringement? Stories of shops refusing to print digital photos. We've seen it for a while in the US. Five years ago we had stories of photoshops in the US refusing to make prints on photos because of the assumption that they must infringe on someone's copyrights. Wal-Mart got caught up in the story a few years back when an employee made some clueless statements about copyright in refusing to make prints of certain images -- and there was a repeat story just a few months ago.

It appears that a similar story is playing itself out across the pond in the UK, where the popular retailer Boots apparently refused to print one woman's photos because they were seen as "too good" for her to have taken, and therefore must be infringing on someone's copyrights (thanks to Dave Michels for sending this in). The woman even got a signed letter, and when that didn't work, came back with the (pregnant) woman who was in the photos to let the staff know that these photos were, indeed, legit and not covered by someone else's copyright. The store still said no.

And, of course, this sort of thing only becomes as bigger and bigger issue as amateur photographers improve. Of course, it's easy to put the blame on Boots or the employees here for being over-zealous (or, as Boots put it, "over-cautious"), but the real issue is what we've turned copyright law into these days, where people are taught to fear being involved in anything that might possibly infringe, as it may lead to lawsuits or a loss of an internet connection or whatever. As copyright laws get more ridiculous, we're teaching people to not move forward if they don't know for sure -- and that can create a massive stifling of creativity and expression.

Filed Under: copyright, photography, print

Can The USPS Really Restrict What You Do With Photographs Of WPA Murals?

from the public-domain? dept

Joshua Weinberg points us to a question from Rick Prelinger, questioning why the US Postal Service restricts photography of the New Deal/WPA murals that it owns. As the USPS website notes, it owns over 1,000 murals that were all commissioned by the Treasury Department between the years of 1934 and 1943. You would think, therefore, they should be in the public domain. Not quite. While you can take photos, the USPS says that photos may only be low resolution, meaning "a maximum of 72 dpi and no larger than a four-by-five-inch output to end use." It has some other rules about not causing a disruption in Post Office facilities, which makes perfect sense, but it's difficult to see how the other rule makes sense. I can also understand if the goal was preservation (no flash, etc.), but not restrictions on how the images can be used. The US gov't does not own the copyright on these works, and thus it seems like they should be in the public domain. Given the USPS's own recent troubles over someone else claiming copyright on an image used in a USPS stamp, you would think they would be sensitive to these sorts of things.

Filed Under: murals, photography, wpa
Companies: usps

If Amateur Photographers Are As Good As Professionals, Then We Can All Be Professional Photographers

from the 1000-words dept

Only a few decades ago, photography was dominated by film cameras, where each and every photograph you took cost money and time to develop. To accumulate 10,000 hours of shooting experience under one's belt was prohibitively expensive, so only those truly dedicated to the craft were able to excel. The divide between the quality of amateur and professional was fairly distinct. Fast forward to today, and we now have a world where photographers can take thousands of pictures without ever incurring any additional cost, making quality photography more accessible than ever before. Also, with digital photography, feedback about a photo is instantaneous, which only serves to accelerate the learning curve. And with the proliferation of photo-sharing sites like Flickr, photographers can share, critique and comment on their photographs and technique, which makes everyone involved a better photographer.

These advances have greatly disrupted a previously solid industry. Last year, after producing it for 74 years, Kodak retired Kodachrome film. Likewise, microstock photography sites like iStockPhoto have undermined the stock photography business model so much so as to incur comparisons of its business to pollution and drug dealing. The microstock business has been buoyed by a the increase in supply of new photographers -- and as with any market where the supply is increased, price is driven downwards. Stock photography that used to cost thousands of dollars a year for a single photo now can cost as little as $1 for a royalty-free license. Furthermore, with the decline of newspapers and magazines, fewer photographers are being sent out on assignment. As a result, professional photographers are starting to feel the squeeze on all sides, and many are now struggling to make a living. Some professional photographers criticize amateurs for agreeing to the low prices. Photographer Matt Eich claims:

"People that don't have to make a living from photography and do it as a hobby don't feel the need to charge a reasonable rate,"

Unfortunately, "making a living" is not a reason to charge a certain price for any good or service. The price is set at what the market will bear, so in this case, the flood of supply and shrinking demand exerts downward pressure on the market. Hobbyists have nothing to do with it.

Advances in technology create new opportunities. The printing press probably made many scribes unhappy with their job security, but it also made the printed word more accessible to everyone and also created a new class of craftsmen who were needed to operate the printing presses. Likewise, with billions of photographs uploaded to the internet each day, looking at and sharing photographs has now become a daily endeavor for many people, as compared to a once-in-awhile event when people dragged out their photo albums. Microstock has made stock photography accessible to many more people who were previously priced out of the market. According to Getty CEO Jonathan Klein:

In 2005, Getty Images licensed 1.4 million preshot commercial photos. Last year, it licensed 22 million -- and "all of the growth was through our user-generated business"

As for the photographers, there's still a viable business for those that can adapt their businesses to reflect the changing landscape. Sure, the magazine industry may be flagging, but magazine production costs are also falling with services like MagCloud, and enterprising photographers are taking matters into their own hands and producing their own. Furthermore, new publications like Burn and JPG have emerged to take advantage of this new crop of seasoned photographers. Some photographers have even embraced the entrepreneurial spirit with their own ventures. Photojournalist Lauren Victoria Burke started WDCPIX, a photographic wire service for sites that can't afford a traditional wire service. For only $260 a month clients have access to a wide range of photojournalistic sources, much cheaper than AP or Getty. But, what's interesting is that subscribers of WDCPIX are actually paying for Burke's work that has not yet created, one of the "10 Good Reasons To Buy" that we've discussed here many times before. So, apparently, even for photographers, the mantra of CwF+RtB applies as well.

Filed Under: amateur, microstock, photography, profressional
Companies: getty, istockphoto, wdcpix

Artist Sues Photographer For Transformative Photo Of Public Artwork, Even Though Photographer Took Down The Photo

from the step-on-this dept

A whole bunch of you sent over yet another story of copyright law gone wrong. An artist named Jack Mackie, who created a piece of artwork made up of bronze shoeprints buried in a sidewalk in Seattle (I'd post a picture, but we'd probably get sued) apparently got upset that a photographer took some photos of it. Remember, it's on a sidewalk. In a public place. And it's a piece of artwork, so people are going to take photos. In this case, the photographer, Mike Hipple, took a photo that was a clear transformative work, rather than a straight copy. The photo, which you can see here, featured someone's feet standing on the art installation -- something you would imagine makes a lot of sense as a commentary on the artwork (since the work itself is of of shoeprints). Cool, right? Not according to Mackie. Hipple posted the photo to a stock photo website -- which does no damage whatsoever to Mackie's work -- and should only call more attention to it. No matter, Mackie sent a legal nastygram. But here's the thing: Hipple complied. He took down the photo and erased it. He no longer has a copy of it. So he complied with the nastygram.

And Mackie sued anyway. He actually waited a year, and then sued, even though the photo had been gone since just a few days after the nastygram was sent. It seems like this should be a clear transformative use. It wasn't just a photo of the artwork, but added a different element that acted as a bit of commentary on the work itself. It's hard to see how this would have even the slightest negative impact on the actual work or the artist. This is just the sort of ridiculous situation that arises when people are told that they "own" something that cannot be owned.

Filed Under: artwork, copyright, jack mackie, mike hipple, photography, transformative

Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

I guess it's natural to lash out at technologies and companies that undermine a business model built up on artificial barriers and scarcity, but it won't do much good in terms of actually adapting. But it's kind of amusing when it's done at the same time that someone is embracing those new technologies as they undermine other business models at the same time. Taylor Davidson points us to a photographer bashing the idea that microstock sites like iStockPhoto help "create new markets." It's actually been really depressing to see so many photographers react so poorly to new technologies, and this case is no exception. In the ranting post, he compares microstock sites to pollution in China and drug dealing. All the rant really screams out is "I'm so set in my ways that I can't compete or adapt my business model."

However, the really amusing part is highlighted by an anonymous commenter on the site who mocks the photographer for whining about how microstock sites are undercutting his old business model at the same time that he's advertising his own books and services online, rather than advertising in newspapers and phone books. As the commenter notes:

If everyone is supposed to stop posting their photos and selling to istock, how about photographers stop using the Web and advertise in phone books and newspapers so those jobs aren't lost? And maybe you can go back to using film instead of digital so that film manufacturers aren't put out of business? Sounds like to me you're all for taking advantage of technology except when others doing it hurts your bottom line.

And that's really a key point. Technology changes markets, and the more you look, the more you realize that it almost always enlarges the overall market for those who take advantage of it. Yes, there's more competition in the photographer market, and the model for stock photography has changed. But the nice thing about the microstock market is that it has opened new markets. A lot more people can and do buy stock photos than did in the past. If I can't find a decent Creative Commons/public domain photo for presentations, I'll go in search of one I can license from a microstock photo site in a second, because it'll just cost $1 or so. So I actually end up spending a fair amount on stock photos in the course of a regular year. Compare that to the situation seven years ago when we were working on a revamp of our corporate website. We went in search of a photo to use, and the licensing deals we saw wanted about $1,000 for just one year of usage. That meant we spent nothing, because that just doesn't make sense.

So, yes, the economics are changing, but if you're smart, you can take advantage of it. It may mean moving beyond just the stock photo market, or using such photographs (or even giving away works for free) to build up reputation for freelance or custom assignments. Most photographers I know never made much money from stock photos anyway, finding much more value in commissioned work. And recently, I've been hearing of success stories from some really good photographers who have used their existing work, given away for free, as strong advertising to get more (and more lucrative) commissions.

In the end, it really comes down to how you deal with it. Do you whine and stomp your feet and compare the new world to pollution? Or do you figure out how to adapt? Economic progress doesn't care in the slightest how much you liked how things used to be.

Filed Under: economics, markets, microstock, photography

Photographers Can Do CwF+RtB Experiments, Too

from the n00bs-need-not-apply dept

Michiel Rhoen writes in to tell us about photography instructor and author, Thom Hogan, who has embraced the CwF+RtB philosophy by offering a limited edition deal (only 25 spots available with 4 already taken at the time of writing this) where Mr. Hogan will sit down one-on-one with each buyer for 3 hours. During those 3 hours, Hogan is game for almost any kind of photography consulting, giving his professional advice on camera equipment, portfolio reviews, help with post processing work or just a long chat over a meal together. But that's not all... The complete Thom Hogan Limited Edition package (US$849) includes:

• A full normal package for the book, Complete Guide to the Nikon D700 (CD and To Go Guide), a US$49.99 value
• A full printed version of the main book in black and white, a US$29.99 value
• A full printed, signed, numbered version of the main book in color, a US$99.99 value
• All of the above shipped to you via Priority Mail
• All future updates of the book, if any, delivered free, a likely US$14.99 value or more
• Three hours of personal, one-on-one time with Thom, a US$750 value

So this deal is aimed directly at folks who own a very specific camera and who happen to be able to travel to see Hogan when he's available for the one-on-one time. It's not exactly going to make Hogan a millionaire (at best, it's going to make him $21,225 gross). But it's a great example of how an author can take advantage of actual scarcities (Hogan's time and expertise) as part of a business. I do find it interesting that Hogan's limited edition offer is an experiment that might demonstrate the advantages of selling an author's time over selling content that is already created. I imagine if this package sells out, that Hogan will expand this limited offer to other specific cameras. And I'd bet he'd even be able to crowdfund a new book if enough amateur photographers ask him to create his next "complete guide" for a camera he might not otherwise have reviewed.

Filed Under: cwf, photography, rtb, thom hogan

Being Unique Is Not The Same As Exclusive (Or Scarce)

from the a-bit-confused dept

Taylor Davidson alerts us to an odd blog post with suggestions on how photographers need to adapt to the changing market place. As Davidson properly notes, there's some good points mixed in there with some really odd conclusions. The writer does a decent job explaining how the market has shifted -- with the ease of digital production and distribution, the old exclusivities have gone away. But, from there, gets confused about what to do with it, focusing on trying to build up artificial scarcities or suggesting that photographers try to ignore basic economics. That's not going to work.

The key point is that the writer seems to think that the key scarcity is uniqueness, as if there's some exclusivity to it. Uniqueness is a good thing, but it's not the same thing as exclusivity (again, a point Davidson makes). Uniqueness is what gets you noticed (promotion) and what makes your real scarcities (time, access, experience, etc.) worth more. But the writer of the post seems to think that uniqueness can only be developed by shunning others, learning from no one, and trying to hide all of your ideas. Some examples:

Hide your best work. Only your clients should see it. no one else.

I can't think of an idea any worse than this. Earlier, the writer suggests focusing on commissioned work. You don't get commissioned if you're hiding your best work. Your best work is the calling card for you to get commissioned work.

Do not share or post your techniques. You will only be popular with the ones that have no imaginations. Like leeches, they feed on others knowledge.

Yes, because all brilliant photographers are simply born brilliant, and never learned a thing from others. The statement above does not mesh with any creative process I know. Sure, there will always be some copycats and "leeches," but if you are an innovator, that's only good for you. It boosts your own reputation as being a trendsetter. Furthermore, most truly creative people use the ideas of others as a part of their own, and build on them -- taking pieces of what they find from others, but still building on them and creating something new and unique. Hiding your techniques doesn't make you exclusive or your work more valuable. It likely just means you're cut off from what is state of the art.

Never, ever ask for the opinion of another photographer. If its good, they will copy you, if it's bad, they won't tell you.

Someone's sounding a bit paranoid here. Collaboration and feedback are good things. They're what help people grow. The problem is that the writer seems to think that this market is a zero sum game, of sorts. If one photographer has a good idea, it's one less good idea for the rest of the world. That also explains the following:

Do not copy. If you have an idea, look to see if it has been done. If it has, drop it. Move on. be creative.

Of course, an awful lot of creativity is done by unique individuals looking to redo the work of others, but adding their own style and flare to it.

All in all, I recognize that it's tough for content creators in disrupted markets to come to terms with the market challenges they're facing, but locking everything up isn't the answer. Cutting yourself off from the world, and hiding your best work, is not the answer. That seems only guaranteed to make your own market dwindle. No one will recommend you. People searching for you won't find you. Your work may be unique, but you'll have missed out on valuable ideas and feedback from others. It's hard to see how that's a winning strategy at all.

Filed Under: photography, scarce, unique

UK: You Can't Photograph Sensitive Buildings; Photogs: Which Are Sensitive? UK: That's Classified

from the catch-22 dept

Boing Boing points to the rather ridiculous news that certain "sensitive" areas of the UK are banned to photographers, but when The British Journal of Photography tried to find out which "sensitive" sites to avoid, the request was rejected. Apparently even telling you what sites you can't photograph is too sensitive. Of course, that leaves photographers in a bit of a Catch-22, as they don't know whether or not a site is photographable until the police tell them they can't photograph it and they may have violated some law in doing so. But... of course, with no list to check on, the police can simply claim any building is off-limits. On top of that, as Cory Doctorow points out:

There's no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks. Indeed, if disclosing the visible features of notable, iconic buildings puts them in danger, we may as well tear them all down now and get it over with, since the whole point of a notable, iconic building is that everybody knows what they look like.

Blind paranoia with a healthy dosage of security theater doesn't stop terrorism. Update: A good comment from Nigel (though, with unnecessary nastiness towards us) goes into more detail explaining what's happening. It's not specifically that photographing certain sites is barred, but that the police have extra powers for search and seizure in certain areas -- and taking photographs is more likely to get police involved in those areas. It's those areas that are considered classified. So, not quite the same thing as the original report, though close. Thanks for the clarification, Nigel!

Filed Under: catch-22, photography, sensitive sites, uk

Photographers Testing Innovative Business Models As Well

from the true-fans dept

While we often talk about music and movies as creative endeavors that require new business models, it's true that we don't pay as much attention to photographers -- though, I should say that when photographers do show up in the comments, they're often the most vociferous defenders of traditional copyright (much more than even recording industry guys). That's why it's interesting to see some are testing out new business models as well. John alerts us to the news that a photographer who goes by the name Ctein is running an experiment where he's asking "true fans" to subscribe to his work -- paying $9.50/month for a year. At the end of the year, he'll send them a couple of prints (chosen from a selection offered). It's based on the idea of Kevin Kelly's 1000 True Fans concept, but also seems quite similar to the business model we suggested for musicians back in 2003. I have no clue if this sort of thing will work -- especially as I'm unfamiliar with Ctein's work as a photographer or the photography market. However, it's great to see others experimenting with similar models in other areas. I look forward to seeing how well it goes.

Filed Under: business models, photography, subscription, true fans