Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 156660734; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:10:09 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.60 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003011420125012597 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Wed, 15 Jan 2003 01:12:50 GMT
Received: (qmail 3459 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2003 01:12:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.74.14)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 15 Jan 2003 01:12:01 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:14:14 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=====================_36189248==_.ALT"

--=====================_36189248==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I am sitting here gritting my teeth and screaming over this! And Bob Dial's 
response, as much I respect him and love his work is even more grating!

In reading Janis' story, I didn't see anything in there that implied that 
she was working for the primary photographer on the wedding, only that she 
had been invited along to shoot for her own portfolio.

I have a lot of experience in work for hire and the other ways 
photographer's are ripped off, and I didn't see anything  Janis' story that 
gave the other photographer any claim  to her work. None. Period. She 
wasn't working for him. She was there to shoot for herself.

Janis gave the negs to the photographer and asked him to hand them over to 
the wedding couple --  as a gift, and that is what the photographer should 
have done. Unless Janis has left something out in her story, and there is 
no reason to think she has, it sounds like the the photographer stole her 
image and appropriated it for his own use. He is a thief.

Sorry Bob, simply being invited to tag along and shoot for herself does not 
-- barring any other agreement -- make Janis an "agent"  for this 
photographer. In addition, I do not see anything in her statement that says 
the two of them would be helping each other out. Even if she agreed to, 
say, help the photographer set up lights or pose the people, this does not, 
(again) without any prior agreement, give him any claim to what she shoots. 
Janis says she was there solely to shoot for herself.

Your example, Bob, of your own experiences at your newspaper really have 
nothing to do with this case. You were a legitimate employee of the paper 
and as such, they had a legal right to do anything they wanted with your 
work. The LIFE magazine example might have been somewhat unethical, but in 
the eyes of the two publications, legal.

To repeat, from Janis's statement, I didn't see anything in there that 
implies an employee relationship, or any kind of business relationship with 
the photographer of record for that wedding. Therefore, he cannot 
appropriate her work for his own purposes without her permission -- and to 
get legally sticky about it, that permission has to be in writing!

No, I'm not a lawyer (though I have played on TV :). This info is gathered 
from my extensive research into Photography and the law, those I have 
interviewed over the years, and from my own experiences.

Janis can, if she is so inclined, demand that the photographer remove her 
work from his website.

Of course, she should ask him nicely -- even though he sounds like a dork.
---
Dear __;

I saw that you are displaying an image of mine on your web site. Because we 
have never discussed an arrangement where you could use my work in the 
promotion of your business, and  because I earn my living photographing 
weddings under my own company name, I would like you to remove my 
photograph as soon as possible

I want you to know that I appreciate very much that fact that you allowed 
me to come along and shoot "your" wedding for my own personal use, but 
because potential clients might be looking at the work of both our studios, 
I want to avoid any confusion that might arise because my work is displayed 
on your web site. Remember, I was shooting for myself, for my own portfolio.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call --

Thank you very much,
  Regards,

PS: As you recall, I asked you to give my negatives of the event to the 
wedding couple (on my behalf). It was my gift to them. I hope there was no 
confusion over this.
---

This should do the trick. If not, then :
---
Dear ___;

I recently asked to you to remove my photograph from your web site, and 
notice that you have not done so. I remind you again, that the photograph 
is mine, that I am the copyright holder of the image. Please remove it ASAP 
or my next move will be to consult my attorney.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Regards,

--


Note to Barbara: According to copyright law, a work is considered 
copyrighted from the moment it is created. Even if the copyright is not 
registered with the U.S. Copyright office, the work is still protected 
(registering a copyright has many benefits, including the right to seek and 
collect punitive damages from those found guilty of copyright infringement. 
If a copyright is not registered, generally, only what is called, actual 
damages can be collected -- and those can be pretty hard to prove.

Transferring a copyright ownership to another person or company must be 
done in writing.

You asked about surviving relatives of copyright holders of works 
(photographs). Like most everything else, the copyrights become a part of 
the deceased person's estate, resulting in photo  credits that often 
mention the "estate of ...".

Carl
still in exile on some island in the Indian Ocean.


At 03:51 PM 1/14/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Janis Foley" 
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:32 PM
>Subject: RE: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
>
>
> > > > So all this talk about Copyright has gotten me thinking
again about
>this
> > > > stuff...
> > > >
> > > > What about when a local photographer here in San Diego
- posts one of
>MY
> > > > images that *I* took at a wedding that WE shot together..
>
> > >
> > > My slant is that if he paid you to help him with the wedding.. he
>booked..
> > > The question of image rights seems to boil down to whether you
> > > acted as his agent or not.
> > >
> > > So, did he hire you or did you hire him, whether payoff was 50-50 or
> > > otherwise?
> >
> > Ooh let me clarify... I should have mentioned this...
> >
> > He was shooting a wedding at a hotel - and I had never shot there before -
> > and I wanted to - just for my book - he asked if I wanted to tag along
>just
> > so I can shoot there and build my book...
>
>Okay, a verbal agreement was implied that you would, in effect, act as an
>agent of the hired photographer because only by his authority would you
>be taking shots there on this occasion.  Ostensibly, you agreed to help each
>other.  It does make the circumstances more involved but the result is the
>same.  The amount of payment (whether for the experience you wanted, or
>for cash) does not offset the owner/agent relationship, as I see it.
>
>Understand I'm not beating drums for the status quo, but studio employees
>do not get to put their names on the portraits they shoot while working
>there
>unless the owner agrees to it.  Very few in this area do.  The pictures
>carry
>the studio name, if there is an embossed imprint, and receive the credit
>line
>if one appears in the newspaper.  In simplicity, the business gets the
>rights.
>
>When I was doing staff work for the local paper I got a taste of what gauls
>you now.  One example is photos I did for a feature story in LIFE magazine.
>I was commissioned in advance of the event to do the work but when it ran
>it carried the credit line of the "The Shreveport Times." 
Ditto on pictures
>that
>ran in TIME magazine and GUN DIGEST, among others.  It's a long standing
>custom, Janis.  I have no idea whether it's backed by court precedent or
>not,
>but it's almost universally applied.
>
> >
> > So I came for one purpose, to make portfolio pictures... and when I had
>done
> > so, I no longer had use for the negs - so I gave them to him to give to
>his
> > clients... As a gift to the clients... So I was NOT paid by him or anyone
>else..
>
>Just my opinion, but I feel a good argument could be made that you were.
>You wanted to experience shooting in that particular location, perhaps to
>enhance any future jobs you might get to work there.  The reason isn't of
>consequence.  You
>got what you wished at the time for your participation and that does qualify
>as compensation, as I see it.  True, you weren't "hired" to
make pictures
>but it was
>understood that is why you were present.  The gift of those images to the
>other
>photographer or the people pictured was a voluntary exchange.  I often pay a
>small legal amount and supplement it as "other good and valuable
>considerations" with copies of the release photographs of a model for use in
>their portfolios or whatever.  All rights remain with me and my assigns.  In
>the same sense I think
>the impression of all present was that you acted as an assistant of sorts to
>the
>photographer hired and the donation of your pictures seems to be in keeping
>with that supposition.  Things like this are why there are lawyers and I
>don't know the
>application of law that applies here.
>
> > ..... I gave the negs up as a gift... sort of
> > as a "thank you for letting me be there at your wedding"...
>
>Very thougtful and generous, as you always are.  I'm sure your clients are
>in
>love with you AND your work!  
>
> >
> > Now what's your vote?  I'm still saying that *I* am the copyright
>holder...
> > and that he has no right to put MY images on HIS website and make money
>off
> > of it...
>
>Why not nicely inform the photog of your feeling of
"parentage" of that shot
>and
>let him know you'd either like to see a credit on it or have him replace it
>with a
>shot of his own, stating that it sort of gives the impression that you work
>for him when in fact you have a valid studio operation of your own.  It's
>only fair that it
>be recognized as such.  Only if he refuses would I then get into the legal
>arena.
>Mentally putting myself in his shoes, I'd feel under prevalent circumstances
>that my actions were in good faith, but your request would be honored.
>
>BobD
>
>
>
>  e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net

http://www.clcookphoto.com
--=====================_36189248==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


I am sitting here gritting my teeth and screaming over this! And Bob
Dial's response, as much I respect him and love his work is even more
grating!
In reading Janis' story, I didn't see anything in there that implied that
she was working for the primary photographer on the wedding, only that
she had been invited along to shoot for her own portfolio. 
I have a lot of experience in work for hire and the other ways
photographer's are ripped off, and I didn't see anything  Janis'
story that gave the other photographer any claim  to her work. None.
Period. She wasn't working for him. She was there to shoot for
herself.
Janis gave the negs to the photographer and asked him to hand them over
to the wedding couple --  as a gift, and that is what the
photographer should have done. Unless Janis has left something out in her
story, and there is no reason to think she has, it sounds like the the
photographer stole her image and appropriated it for his own use. He is a
thief. 
Sorry Bob, simply being invited to tag along and shoot for herself does
not -- barring any other agreement -- make Janis an
"agent"  for this photographer. In addition, I do not see
anything in her statement that says the two of them would be helping each
other out. Even if she agreed to, say, help the photographer set up
lights or pose the people, this does not, (again) without any prior
agreement, give him any claim to what she shoots. Janis says she was
there solely to shoot for herself. 
Your example, Bob, of your own experiences at your newspaper really have
nothing to do with this case. You were a legitimate employee of the paper
and as such, they had a legal right to do anything they wanted with your
work. The LIFE magazine example might have been somewhat unethical, but
in the eyes of the two publications, legal.
To repeat, from Janis's statement, I didn't see anything in there that
implies an employee relationship, or any kind of business
relationship with the photographer of record for that wedding.
Therefore, he cannot appropriate her work for his own purposes without
her permission -- and to get legally sticky about it, that permission has
to be in writing! 
No, I'm not a lawyer (though I have played on TV :). This info is
gathered from my extensive research into Photography and the law, those I
have interviewed over the years, and from my own experiences. 
Janis can, if she is so inclined, demand that the photographer remove her
work from his website. 
Of course, she should ask him nicely -- even though he sounds like a
dork. 
--- 
Dear __;
I saw that you are displaying an image of mine on your web site. Because
we have never discussed an arrangement where you could use my work in the
promotion of your business, and  because I earn my living
photographing weddings under my own company name, I would like you to
remove my photograph as soon as possible
I want you to know that I appreciate very much that fact that you allowed
me to come along and shoot "your" wedding for my own personal
use, but because potential clients might be looking at the work of both
our studios, I want to avoid any confusion that might arise because my
work is displayed on your web site. Remember, I was shooting for myself,
for my own portfolio.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call -- 
Thank you very much, 
 Regards, 
PS: As you recall, I asked you to give my negatives of the event to the
wedding couple (on my behalf). It was my gift to them. I hope there was
no confusion over this.
---
This should do the trick. If not, then :
---
Dear ___;
I recently asked to you to remove my photograph from your web site, and
notice that you have not done so. I remind you again, that the photograph
is mine, that I am the copyright holder of the image. Please remove it
ASAP or my next move will be to consult my attorney. 
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. 
Regards, 
--

Note to Barbara: According to copyright law, a work is considered
copyrighted from the moment it is created. Even if the copyright is not
registered with the U.S. Copyright office, the work is still protected
(registering a copyright has many benefits, including the right to seek
and collect punitive damages from those found guilty of copyright
infringement. If a copyright is not registered, generally, only what is
called, actual damages can be collected -- and those can be pretty
hard to prove. 
Transferring a copyright ownership to another person or company must be
done in writing. 
You asked about surviving relatives of copyright holders of works
(photographs). Like most everything else, the copyrights become a part of
the deceased person's estate, resulting in photo  credits that often
mention the "estate of ...". 
Carl 
still in exile on some island in the Indian Ocean.

At 03:51 PM 1/14/2003 -0600, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janis Foley" <janis{at}janisfoley.com>
To: <photo{at}fanciful.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Copyright INFRINGEMENT

> > > So all this talk about Copyright has gotten me thinking
again about
this
> > > stuff...
> > >
> > > What about when a local photographer here in San Diego -
posts one of
MY
> > > images that *I* took at a wedding that WE shot
together..
> >
> > My slant is that if he paid you to help him with the wedding..
he
booked..
> > The question of image rights seems to boil down to whether
you
> > acted as his agent or not.
> >
> > So, did he hire you or did you hire him, whether payoff was
50-50 or
> > otherwise?
>
> Ooh let me clarify... I should have mentioned this...
>
> He was shooting a wedding at a hotel - and I had never shot there
before -
> and I wanted to - just for my book - he asked if I wanted to tag
along
just
> so I can shoot there and build my book...
Okay, a verbal agreement was implied that you would, in effect, act as
an
agent of the hired photographer because only by his authority would
you
be taking shots there on this occasion.  Ostensibly, you agreed to
help each
other.  It does make the circumstances more involved but the result
is the
same.  The amount of payment (whether for the experience you wanted,
or
for cash) does not offset the owner/agent relationship, as I see
it.
Understand I'm not beating drums for the status quo, but studio
employees
do not get to put their names on the portraits they shoot while
working
there
unless the owner agrees to it.  Very few in this area do.  The
pictures
carry
the studio name, if there is an embossed imprint, and receive the
credit
line
if one appears in the newspaper.  In simplicity, the business gets
the
rights.
When I was doing staff work for the local paper I got a taste of what
gauls
you now.  One example is photos I did for a feature story in LIFE
magazine.
I was commissioned in advance of the event to do the work but when it
ran
it carried the credit line of the "The Shreveport Times." 
Ditto on pictures
that
ran in TIME magazine and GUN DIGEST, among others.  It's a long
standing
custom, Janis.  I have no idea whether it's backed by court
precedent or
not,
but it's almost universally applied.
>
> So I came for one purpose, to make portfolio pictures... and when I
had
done
> so, I no longer had use for the negs - so I gave them to him to give
to
his
> clients... As a gift to the clients... So I was NOT paid by him or
anyone
else..
Just my opinion, but I feel a good argument could be made that you
were.
You wanted to experience shooting in that particular location, perhaps
to
enhance any future jobs you might get to work there.  The reason
isn't of
consequence.  You
got what you wished at the time for your participation and that does
qualify
as compensation, as I see it.  True, you weren't "hired"
to make pictures
but it was
understood that is why you were present.  The gift of those images
to the
other
photographer or the people pictured was a voluntary exchange.  I
often pay a
small legal amount and supplement it as "other good and
valuable
considerations" with copies of the release photographs of a model
for use in
their portfolios or whatever.  All rights remain with me and my
assigns.  In
the same sense I think
the impression of all present was that you acted as an assistant of sorts
to
the
photographer hired and the donation of your pictures seems to be in
keeping
with that supposition.  Things like this are why there are lawyers
and I
don't know the
application of law that applies here.
> ..... I gave the negs up as a gift... sort of
> as a "thank you for letting me be there at your
wedding"...
Very thougtful and generous, as you always are.  I'm sure your
clients are
in
love with you AND your work!  <G>
>
> Now what's your vote?  I'm still saying that *I* am the
copyright
holder...
> and that he has no right to put MY images on HIS website and make
money
off
> of it...
Why not nicely inform the photog of your feeling of "parentage"
of that shot
and
let him know you'd either like to see a credit on it or have him replace
it
with a
shot of his own, stating that it sort of gives the impression that you
work
for him when in fact you have a valid studio operation of your own. 
It's
only fair that it
be recognized as such.  Only if he refuses would I then get into the
legal
arena.
Mentally putting myself in his shoes, I'd feel under prevalent
circumstances
that my actions were in good faith, but your request would be
honored.
BobD

 e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net

http://www.clcookphoto.com/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.clcookphoto.com;

--=====================_36189248==_.ALT--