I have my UA-cam videos stolen all the time and find them on all social platforms on monetised accounts. I always make a copyright claim.but unfortunately, the unauthorised user keeps the earned revenue. Very unfair.
@BlackBeltBarrister Yes, I do understand this. However, finding out who is behind the pages is hard unless they counter the copyright claim, and this has only happened once.
@BlackBeltBarrister any suggestions on how a creator like myself would be able to find out who is responsible for the account on the basis of the account is a page name or fake name?
I have put a few photos on Wikipedia. I own the copyright to them but they are published under a free-use licence, meaning that anyone else can use them but cannot claim them as their own. I'm totally happy with this as they have no commercial value but enable others to see my photos.
I had a photo business for many years - retail, processing, studio and weddings. On a regular basis we had people bringing in pro wedding photos asking for copies. I'd explain that any copy, by nature of the process, would not be as good quality and that the original photographer owned the copyright and they should be approached for copies (Usually, they had asked but didn't like the quoted prices). I was crossing my fingers that any other photo shop would decline to copy our photos in the same way.
Years ago, I designed and hosted a website for a company at the request of an employee. This included many hours of writing content and adding graphics/photos to promote the company’s products. They subsequently refused to pay me the small fee requested. I later found they had copied all my websites design and content verbatim and uploaded the copy on a new domain name. A pretty low move I thought, as I ended up out of pocket for my time, effort and hoisting expenses. You live and learn.
When I had professional photos of my triplet grandsons, Ibought a selection of photos and he put all the photon a disc. Ihad a written letter of permission so that I could pass copies of them on to family.
I did have the Mail on Sunday breach my copyright once when they took a couple of photos off of her copyrighted website (she's a musician), clearly credited to me, and use them in news article about her. I'm not a professional photographer, and I'd given my permission to her to use them in that sort of contest. I probably ought to have pursued the newspaper, as apparently there was some sort of standard payment for such breaches as newspapers do it so often.
My experience is that newspapers will helps themselves in the hope you will be flattered, won't notice, or don't know what to do about it if you do notice. Send them an invoice for the UNLICENSED USE of your work, and don't back down when they make excuses and offer the 'going rate' instead. They don't get to negotiate AFTER using your work, only before.
Copyright laws and patent laws have become a mess. The concept of copyright and patents was to encourage the creator to keep creating. Now the creators descendants look upon copyrights as a meal ticket for life in perpetuity. Some have pointed out that the ever growing time extensions granted in each re-examination of these laws are impinging upon what has always been deemed to be part of and belong to our ‘common’ cultural heritage. The laws also differ from county to country making it difficult for everyone.
@@Nuts-BoltsI think it should b long enough to cover dependent minor children and widows/widowers. So I'd say 70 years is too long. 50 seems about as much as is justifiable to me. And I say that as someone who has quite a lot of copyright work to my name, and who has done work that involved paying others for theirs, and fully supports copyright as a principle.
Disney is fuming that 'Steamboat Willie' is now out of copyright. Recently, the song 'Happy Birthday' which had been a meal-ticket for life for the family of the writers, was deemed to be out of copyright, and should have been far earlier.
Thank you, I prrsonally found this helpful as I've experienced photographs, films and videos of myself at work taken and used behind my back for financial gain by people other than myself years ago, plus my identity stolen on several occasions. Blackbeltbarrister your video today is supportive and spot on👍❤
Simple answer - who pays or makes the contract is the one who owns the copyright. So outwith a contract, the creator is the copyright owner, be it a photograph or a website design. A photographer can be hired to take photos and the copyright can be kept by the person/company hiring the photographer. Just like an artist commissioned to make a painting. The difference and confusion is down to the fact that websites are specific to a company whilst photographs (other than of specific things) are typically used as stock photos in many different uses.
The existence of a contract and/or payment doesn't transfer copyright. If a photographer is contracted to take photos, the photographer will still retain the copyright unless the contract states otherwise.
Interesting video @BlackBeltBarrister. As a photographer & coder I understand the issue at hand. Interestingly I recently had a company contact me asking me to take photographs off my website that they believed they owned. I pointed out that I took those photos with my camera and equipment and that if they wanted it I could send them the EXIM data from the photos to prove ownership. I also offered to license the photos to them but never heard back. Typically when I give photos to a client there is always a caveat on the specific remit of use. For example digital reproduction ONLY and also only on a particular URL. Regarding source code: I have always given over ownership of code in any website I have designed because the client has paid for this and I know the code is so specific and bespoke it's highly unlikely they could resell the code.
yeah, we got married in 1995 and, like when you're getting married there's 10000 things to attend to, didn't think about the copyright on the pictures. The contract was for the photographers services on the day, obvs, a review of the pictures we wanted printed and then for a certain number of prints. We were surprised after when for a cropping adjustment, resizing a pic or extra prints or whatever the cost was astronomical. We didn't own the originals :(
Back then it was how wedding photographers made the main bulk of money, though I'm.asduming in 1995 your photos were film based. Therefore there is a lot more cost involved in 'editing' of film shots as opposed to what Photoshop gives us now.
I have encountered his sort of thing in the past when working in consultancy. It seemed best for the agreement itself to be explicit in the ownership of intellectual property. The consultancy will always ensure that, at the very least, its background intellectual property is retained, otherwise future business with other clients will be compromised. This whole area often led to some protracted negotiations. To reiterate, the important thing is that the client organisation is fully aware of what it is getting for the money before anything is signed.
As a contractor, I developed a training course in my own time and using my own equipment, and gave banks who purchased it a licence to use (within their organisation) and modify the course, but not sell or distribute it to a third party. The agreement went quite smoothly and of course is quite outside IR35.
I have a setting on my camera that allows me to add my copyright information to the metadata at the time of taking the photo , it is no guarantee that your image will not be used without your permission but it may help , I will not enter the BBC Countryfile Photo competition for example as by entering you give away your rights and they can use your image how they like , when I was a member of a local camera club they could use images for inter club competitions with the Authors permission but the photographer still held the copyright.
Which all goes to show the need to put everything on paper prior to doing a job - T&Cs, License to Use terms, payment terms, and any negotiated exceptions to those terms. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's makes life simpler.
I am a wedding and portrait photographer My understanding is whoever created that media could be a painting or photo or code for a website is sole owner of that copyright, If you are getting paid for a wedding like myself or that project they will get limited copyright use from that, Me personally in my contract it states that i own the copyright you are aloud to print to x size and any further prints contact myself your not aloud to publish any work of any kind and you cant make any changes to that work, So far its hold up and people understood it in plain English lol then law terms 😂 But yes copyright is a very complicated subject and i struggle with it at times with creating websites and i have to read the licenses of products i using ect to see if i am aloud or not to use them
This debate also applies to personel videos,the police are not allowed to delete any footage no matter what it is,the camera is an extension of your eyes and saves that data.If a camera is used on a professional basis ie a film is being created the copyright belongs to the director including sound,it changes if someone wants to have a film created by film company say a wedding then the requester pays for that film.
I believe it is correct to say, that a photographer commissioned to take photographs at a wedding, owns the copyright to those photographs. The commissioners in this case the couple, and their guests can only purchase photographs from the photographer. They must not copy or reproduce those photographs themselves. On the other hand, if the photographer wishes to use those photographs in a promotional way, he or she must obtain permission to do so from the commissioners, in this case the couple. I believe this to be the case unless prior agreement has been reached at the time of commission and is clearly stated in the contract.
There is a period where the commissioning party own the copyright unless otherwise agreed, ended 31 Jul1989 (from DACS, what-is-visual-arts-copyright/photographs). Useful for working with old family wedding photos.
Wedding photographer here. Ive had the odd request now and again for RAW files. I don't mind selling them, with caveats. Once ive used them to create the final efits supplied to my couples, the RAW files are useless to me.
the concept of "resale rights" in software was to prevent people from giving the product away for free. the software came with a bundled website where the customer could update the payment button and also a license in a text file.
Copyright mostly defers to the exact constract phrasing. Unlessa a contract explicitly says copyright vests in the assignee of the contract, it generally will be vested to the creator of the work.
So if a landscape Gardner for argument built and designed a clients garden and was paid for his work would he own the copyright to that garden. Extreme unlikely to ever happen but in principle he designed and gave his time creativity expertise just the same as a photographer.
In business for 27 years, and very early into having a website and selling online (since 1999), I wasted hours of my time every single week chasing down image theft of my products which other people used on their websites and online selling platforms. The typical excuses renged from "my web developer did it" "it was on google images" to "F off" to being ignored. Lost count of the number of DMCA takedowns I had to do. The mad thing was is that these people were ALL selling similar products of their own but were either to lazy, ignorant or incompetenet to take their own half decent photos. It wouldn't have taken much effort to take far better photographs than the ones they stole from my web sites. I did find ISPs pretty quik and efficient at processing DMCA claims. Boy, did some of these idoits get angry when their sites or pages were taken down 🤣
One of my idiots was the ex-assistant editor of a national newspaper who "knew all about copyright" and was still arguing and trying to belittle me while paying my invoice plus some to avoid a court appearance. As far as they are concerned, we are still the wrong uns, for standing our ground and protecting our work.
Something more interesting here is let's say that a developer writes code in C and creates a product with binaries and libraries. If they use a compiler that they pay for, they are under no obligation to provide the source code to their customers. However, if the developer writes some code in C and uses GCC to compile the binaries and libraries, under the GNU Software License, they are obliged to provide the source code to their customer. That is one of the terms and conditions of using GCC.
Advocacy plays a vital role in promoting fair treatment and recognition for open standards contributors. By open standards, I mean things like HTML itself, formats of documents such as invoices, things like Word format and the open source alternatives like ODF. By raising awareness of their contributions and advocating for policies and practices that support their work, we can help ensure that their efforts are valued, respected, and duly compensated within the digital ecosystem. We continue to rely on open standards to drive innovation and progress in the digital era, it's imperative that we recognize and protect the contributions of those who dedicate their time and expertise to shaping the standards that govern our digital infrastructure. By affording similar protections to open standards contributors as those enjoyed by artists in the music industry, we can foster a culture of appreciation, support, and respect that benefits the entire digital ecosystem. People should work together to ensure that the contributions of open standards contributors are valued, protected, and celebrated now and in the future. Looking at the support photographers and music artists get, the same should apply to technology designers behind things like the Web itself.
Sirui (lens maker) used a photograph from my UA-cam video and used it in a marketing campaign. I told them and they offered me nothing for it but I cannot afford lawyers to sue.
Difference between work for hire (client owns copyright from conception), and creating work for sale (artist assigns the copyright). Every graphic artist/designer knows that, it's in our bible "The Handbook" from the Graphic Artist Guild.
Us fine artists have the problem that most of our clients are not professionals, and so they don't realise that we own the copyright of paintings we sell, even commissioned ones, unless we specifically sell the copyright as well ( which almost never do). I always explain this to my clients, but also say that if they did want to reproduce it, say, on a Christmas card for their own use, if they ask, I could give them written permission to show to a printer, which will state the limits of any use. In fact, when this has happened, I've not only given permission, I've helped them to find a good printer and guided them through the process, all without charge. But I leave them in no doubt that the copryright still remains mine, and I can allow its use however I choose, or not. I find if people know how it works from the start, they're fine with it. Much better than not mentioning it and then having a fight on your hands later.
I have contributed to many large scale websites as an employee of large consultancies. I sure don’t own the code while employed, I’m pretty sure every project the client owns the code. I don’t disagree with the principle that one may retain copyright of their work (the website). I do dispute the notion that is the normal practice. I think it is more common for clients to own the code because they will take on the responsibility to maintain the website which requires changing the code.
I would love you to take a look into the Afroman situation in the states, where he is being sued for creating songs and music videos using his own personal CCTV of a no knock raid under dubious circumstances and is being sued in the states for it. I would love to know where people stand in this country regarding the privacy of police recorded inside their homes. Hopefully I haven't missed a prior video on this, hope you're well!
This is a problem with video gaming. You don't own the game, you pay for a licence. Problem is in the digital realm, copyright owners have taken away the licence to play the game you've paid full price for and consumers have no legal recourse other than to boycott that publisher in future. Video gaming companies are not happy about the resale of physical (retro) second hand games either as they believe they are being deprived an additional sale of and revenue from that copy of the game.
Question At the divorce the judge made a ruling, on the property, each parties settlement this was 15 years ago the property was never sold , now the ex wants to revisit the ruling and sell the empty property at the settlement judgement the judge made all them years ago Do know if you want to use this question as a podcast
Great Content but you might like to do an extra video on Facebook and other social media sites who state that any images uploaded may be used for promotional purposes An example following a tragic car crash on christmas eve an amateur photographer took images of the aftermath and uploaded them to social media and they went viral. However the amateur who uploaded was paid nothing. However I was working via an agency and took images 6-7 hours later which I was paid for as they were sold to the papers via the agency. I'm sure you understand why but many who don't know how their pictures will get used. Happy to share examples if required Cheers
If you change someone else’s photograph using editing software. When does that become yours? Similarly I believe as in if you change someone else’s product design sufficiently it becomes a new design
What if some takes your photo outside at a Park (public property) publishes it online or sends it through email and does this just to laugh make a joke out of you. Is this ok?
I was commissioned to take photos of a property that was for rent (AirBnb). I went and took the photos, edited and delivered to the client and they didn't like them. Because I provided the service I still sent an invoice which has remained unpaid for years. Just last year I discovered that this person was using the photos on his website which are helping in renting out the property. I contacted multiple solicitors all over the UK and Northern Ireland and not a single person would deal with it. Do you have any recommendations?
Are you really recording in RAW? Sure it'd not 10 bit Log? If so are you recording RAW are you recording via an external RAW recorder as very few cameras have internal raw unless it is RED, Blackmagic, Canon cinema camera, Arri or Nikkon Z9 for example. Just curious...
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the copyright lies with the owner of the drive or memory card in the camera, which in theory means if you own a camera with drive or card and you lend it to Cecil Beaton who takes a photograph with it, you own the copyright not him. I assume in analogue terms you would also own the copyright in an image exposed on emulsion film in the same circumstances.
I worked in a photo lab for many years processing and printing customer's orders. Technically the copyright would still be with the artist that snapped the photo. If you were to hand your camera to them asking them to take a photo with you in it, they could claim the copyright. Them giving you the camera back after taking the photo and not asking for anything before walking away would imply they don't intend to copyright the image. Most people in this situation wouldn't put a copyright on such an image in this case. Even though I'm a photographer and take the hobby quite seriously, I wouldn't copyright an image I took on behalf of a stranger with their camera.
In his book “Copyright for archivists and records managers” 6th. edition 2019, Dr. Tim Padfield states says that for the purposes of determining the first owner of copyright the author of a photograph taken between 1 July 1912 and 31 July 1989 is the owner of the material on which it was taken (for example, the negative). There is an exception for photographs that were commissioned for money, in which case copyright goes to the commissioner. Padfield does not discuss loaned equipment directly, but the implication is clear enough. However, the law changed in 1989. Since then the author has been the photographer himself - or rather, the person responsible for the composition, whether or not they actually press the shutter.
The only thing I don’t get is, if I take a picture of a picture, and the picture I took a picture of is copyright. Can I use my photograph in the public domain ?
@@gchecosse Provided the picture itself is out of copyright (artist has been dead for over 70 years) and the owner of the painting gave permission for the photo to be taken, and you took the picture, then AFAIK its fine. You can't pay copyright fees or get copyright permission if the work is out of copyright. But if the picture is in copyright, that's it, you need copyright permission and may have to pay a fee.
Its always bugged me how its seen as normal and ok that the photographer gets paid insane rates for a wedding and thinks on top of that they can keep the full copyright to exploit and use as they wish. I mean they serve only 3 purposes i xan think of keeping the rights. 1. They can use them in their portfolio etc but they normally ask for permission for that anyway so thats mute 2. So they can double or more charge you if you ever want more copies 3. To limit what you can do with it for no reason other than greed. For software i get it becsuse you can reuse that code and make surface level changes to allow you to build the next requested one faster and therefor cheaper so you and the customer both benefit, they get cheaper products and you get to reuse it. But even with software id fhe customer paid for a Greenfield project and covered the full costs with profit on top then if they said we cant reuse it id be fine with it and see no reason to charge extra.
@@gchecosseEveryone has the choice of whether to book a professional photographer or ask friends or family to take photos with the good camera in their pocket.
@@gchecosse If you choose a wedding photographer who isn't any better than a randomer with a smartphone, you have chosen poorly. If you are happy with the photos that random guests are going to take, that's fine, just don't expect much. People pay wedding photographers a lot of money because they have been practicing for years, have thousands of £s of equipment, and spend a long time editing afterwards to create something wonderful.
The rights are what you would negotiate with the photographer. Normally this would be for personal non-commercial use. The photographer would own the copyright.
Hi Bbb at the start of some films on dvd there is copyright blurb with a reference to resale of the dvd. Please can you clarify if selling on original secondhand dvds is legal, thanks
If an individual owning some copyright, then implicitly allowing licence to others to use the material copyrighted, can they have any way to gain personally from the copyright, or is it just a valueless bit of ‘property’? Does copyright ownership for an individual have any real value for them? Is there any value, say, that can be left in a will?
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If I take a photo of you, that photo is of little use to me after you (hopefully) buy it, and you probably can't make much money selling it on, so it has little monetary value there. If I take a photo of a nice hill, that photo could be sold to multiple people, but those people shouldn't be allowed to sell it on themselves, so the copyright does have monetary value in that case. Also, it stops you from editing the images in a way that might cause others to not look favourably on our work.
@@praetorian65 So the value of copyright is its power to potentially increase the price when you sell, by increasing the likelihood you are the only seller. I suppose shared copyright does the same when any copyright owner sells what is copyrighted.
@@alisonwilson9749I'm an author, and a former police officer. I'm familiar with copyright infringement, and with the definition of theft. If someone copies my books and puts them on Z-Library, for example, nothing is stolen from me... I am not permanently deprived of my books. I simply don't receive royalty payments for books that people might copy or download for free. Theft has a very precise definition in Law, and Blackbeltbarrister loses credibility in the eyes of anyone familiar both with copyright and with the definition of theft when he posts a video with 'copyright theft' in the title. It was media corporations and software companies who first used 'copyright theft' and 'piracy' as emotive terms in spite of and contrary to their proper legal definitions, and they did so purely because 'copyright infringement' didn't sound 'criminal' enough for their liking. It might 'feel' like theft, but feelings butter no parsnips where the law is concerned.
I have my UA-cam videos stolen all the time and find them on all social platforms on monetised accounts. I always make a copyright claim.but unfortunately, the unauthorised user keeps the earned revenue. Very unfair.
You could sue them for it
@BlackBeltBarrister Yes, I do understand this. However, finding out who is behind the pages is hard unless they counter the copyright claim, and this has only happened once.
@@BlackBeltBarristerthe person or the platform?
@@NewsNowYorkshire the person
@BlackBeltBarrister any suggestions on how a creator like myself would be able to find out who is responsible for the account on the basis of the account is a page name or fake name?
I have put a few photos on Wikipedia. I own the copyright to them but they are published under a free-use licence, meaning that anyone else can use them but cannot claim them as their own. I'm totally happy with this as they have no commercial value but enable others to see my photos.
when I had my wedding pictures done, I made sure that I owned all rights to the pictures - as this was a "work for hire"
I had a photo business for many years - retail, processing, studio and weddings. On a regular basis we had people bringing in pro wedding photos asking for copies. I'd explain that any copy, by nature of the process, would not be as good quality and that the original photographer owned the copyright and they should be approached for copies (Usually, they had asked but didn't like the quoted prices). I was crossing my fingers that any other photo shop would decline to copy our photos in the same way.
Years ago, I designed and hosted a website for a company at the request of an employee. This included many hours of writing content and adding graphics/photos to promote the company’s products. They subsequently refused to pay me the small fee requested. I later found they had copied all my websites design and content verbatim and uploaded the copy on a new domain name. A pretty low move I thought, as I ended up out of pocket for my time, effort and hoisting expenses. You live and learn.
That's what contracts are for - a simple licence to use and modify is all that required. You keep the IP but allow them to make use of it.
Get a Lawyer then they would sort out the copyright.
When I had professional photos of my triplet grandsons, Ibought a selection of photos and he put all the photon a disc. Ihad a written letter of permission so that I could pass copies of them on to family.
I did have the Mail on Sunday breach my copyright once when they took a couple of photos off of her copyrighted website (she's a musician), clearly credited to me, and use them in news article about her. I'm not a professional photographer, and I'd given my permission to her to use them in that sort of contest. I probably ought to have pursued the newspaper, as apparently there was some sort of standard payment for such breaches as newspapers do it so often.
My experience is that newspapers will helps themselves in the hope you will be flattered, won't notice, or don't know what to do about it if you do notice. Send them an invoice for the UNLICENSED USE of your work, and don't back down when they make excuses and offer the 'going rate' instead. They don't get to negotiate AFTER using your work, only before.
Copyright laws and patent laws have become a mess. The concept of copyright and patents was to encourage the creator to keep creating. Now the creators descendants look upon copyrights as a meal ticket for life in perpetuity.
Some have pointed out that the ever growing time extensions granted in each re-examination of these laws are impinging upon what has always been deemed to be part of and belong to our ‘common’ cultural heritage.
The laws also differ from county to country making it difficult for everyone.
Copyright is NOT in perpetuity. Copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, artist or photographer.
@@alasdairmackenzie905 Was only 25 yr once. It keeps getting extended.
@@Nuts-BoltsI think it should b long enough to cover dependent minor children and widows/widowers. So I'd say 70 years is too long. 50 seems about as much as is justifiable to me. And I say that as someone who has quite a lot of copyright work to my name, and who has done work that involved paying others for theirs, and fully supports copyright as a principle.
Disney is fuming that 'Steamboat Willie' is now out of copyright. Recently, the song 'Happy Birthday' which had been a meal-ticket for life for the family of the writers, was deemed to be out of copyright, and should have been far earlier.
Thank you, I prrsonally found this helpful as I've experienced photographs, films and videos of myself at work taken and used behind my back for financial gain by people other than myself years ago, plus my identity stolen on several occasions. Blackbeltbarrister your video today is supportive and spot on👍❤
Simple answer - who pays or makes the contract is the one who owns the copyright. So outwith a contract, the creator is the copyright owner, be it a photograph or a website design. A photographer can be hired to take photos and the copyright can be kept by the person/company hiring the photographer. Just like an artist commissioned to make a painting.
The difference and confusion is down to the fact that websites are specific to a company whilst photographs (other than of specific things) are typically used as stock photos in many different uses.
The existence of a contract and/or payment doesn't transfer copyright. If a photographer is contracted to take photos, the photographer will still retain the copyright unless the contract states otherwise.
This seems very useful. Thank you for addressing this topic.
Interesting video @BlackBeltBarrister.
As a photographer & coder I understand the issue at hand.
Interestingly I recently had a company contact me asking me to take photographs off my website that they believed they owned. I pointed out that I took those photos with my camera and equipment and that if they wanted it I could send them the EXIM data from the photos to prove ownership.
I also offered to license the photos to them but never heard back.
Typically when I give photos to a client there is always a caveat on the specific remit of use. For example digital reproduction ONLY and also only on a particular URL.
Regarding source code: I have always given over ownership of code in any website I have designed because the client has paid for this and I know the code is so specific and bespoke it's highly unlikely they could resell the code.
yeah, we got married in 1995 and, like when you're getting married there's 10000 things to attend to, didn't think about the copyright on the pictures. The contract was for the photographers services on the day, obvs, a review of the pictures we wanted printed and then for a certain number of prints. We were surprised after when for a cropping adjustment, resizing a pic or extra prints or whatever the cost was astronomical. We didn't own the originals :(
Back then it was how wedding photographers made the main bulk of money, though I'm.asduming in 1995 your photos were film based. Therefore there is a lot more cost involved in 'editing' of film shots as opposed to what Photoshop gives us now.
I have encountered his sort of thing in the past when working in consultancy. It seemed best for the agreement itself to be explicit in the ownership of intellectual property. The consultancy will always ensure that, at the very least, its background intellectual property is retained, otherwise future business with other clients will be compromised. This whole area often led to some protracted negotiations. To reiterate, the important thing is that the client organisation is fully aware of what it is getting for the money before anything is signed.
I’ve got in to patents, which is a whole different level. I improved certain types of networks performance by about 80%.
As a contractor, I developed a training course in my own time and using my own equipment, and gave banks who purchased it a licence to use (within their organisation) and modify the course, but not sell or distribute it to a third party. The agreement went quite smoothly and of course is quite outside IR35.
I have a setting on my camera that allows me to add my copyright information to the metadata at the time of taking the photo , it is no guarantee that your image will not be used without your permission but it may help , I will not enter the BBC Countryfile Photo competition for example as by entering you give away your rights and they can use your image how they like , when I was a member of a local camera club they could use images for inter club competitions with the Authors permission but the photographer still held the copyright.
Which all goes to show the need to put everything on paper prior to doing a job - T&Cs, License to Use terms, payment terms, and any negotiated exceptions to those terms. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's makes life simpler.
I used to describe Raw photographs as being the negatives from film, but as you can imagine that comparison has rather lost its roots in 2024.
it sepends on how the photographer was engaged. if it is a "work for hire" then you have the copyright.
I am a wedding and portrait photographer
My understanding is whoever created that media could be a painting or photo or code for a website is sole owner of that copyright,
If you are getting paid for a wedding like myself or that project they will get limited copyright use from that,
Me personally in my contract it states that i own the copyright you are aloud to print to x size and any further prints contact myself your not aloud to publish any work of any kind and you cant make any changes to that work,
So far its hold up and people understood it in plain English lol then law terms 😂
But yes copyright is a very complicated subject and i struggle with it at times with creating websites and i have to read the licenses of products i using ect to see if i am aloud or not to use them
This debate also applies to personel videos,the police are not allowed to delete any footage no matter what it is,the camera is an extension of your eyes and saves that data.If a camera is used on a professional basis ie a film is being created the copyright belongs to the director including sound,it changes if someone wants to have a film created by film company say a wedding then the requester pays for that film.
I believe it is correct to say, that a photographer commissioned to take photographs at a wedding, owns the copyright to those photographs. The commissioners in this case the couple, and their guests can only purchase photographs from the photographer. They must not copy or reproduce those photographs themselves. On the other hand, if the photographer wishes to use those photographs in a promotional way, he or she must obtain permission to do so from the commissioners, in this case the couple. I believe this to be the case unless prior agreement has been reached at the time of commission and is clearly stated in the contract.
There is a period where the commissioning party own the copyright unless otherwise agreed, ended 31 Jul1989 (from DACS, what-is-visual-arts-copyright/photographs). Useful for working with old family wedding photos.
Wedding photographer here. Ive had the odd request now and again for RAW files. I don't mind selling them, with caveats. Once ive used them to create the final efits supplied to my couples, the RAW files are useless to me.
the concept of "resale rights" in software was to prevent people from giving the product away for free. the software came with a bundled website where the customer could update the payment button and also a license in a text file.
Cannot tell what you are trying to say.
@@eadweard. how terrible for you. I'm so glad I'm not you!
@@eadweard. did you ask a grown up to help you? 🤣
@@eadweard. ed weird 🤔
Copyright mostly defers to the exact constract phrasing. Unlessa a contract explicitly says copyright vests in the assignee of the contract, it generally will be vested to the creator of the work.
So, long story short, it all depends on the terms of the contract.
Yes!! Something that many wedding couples seem to forget when giving my images to other suppliers.
So if a landscape Gardner for argument built and designed a clients garden and was paid for his work would he own the copyright to that garden. Extreme unlikely to ever happen but in principle he designed and gave his time creativity expertise just the same as a photographer.
He couldn't actually copy & resell the garden, though.
In business for 27 years, and very early into having a website and selling online (since 1999), I wasted hours of my time every single week chasing down image theft of my products which other people used on their websites and online selling platforms. The typical excuses renged from "my web developer did it" "it was on google images" to "F off" to being ignored. Lost count of the number of DMCA takedowns I had to do. The mad thing was is that these people were ALL selling similar products of their own but were either to lazy, ignorant or incompetenet to take their own half decent photos. It wouldn't have taken much effort to take far better photographs than the ones they stole from my web sites.
I did find ISPs pretty quik and efficient at processing DMCA claims. Boy, did some of these idoits get angry when their sites or pages were taken down 🤣
One of my idiots was the ex-assistant editor of a national newspaper who "knew all about copyright" and was still arguing and trying to belittle me while paying my invoice plus some to avoid a court appearance. As far as they are concerned, we are still the wrong uns, for standing our ground and protecting our work.
Something more interesting here is let's say that a developer writes code in C and creates a product with binaries and libraries. If they use a compiler that they pay for, they are under no obligation to provide the source code to their customers.
However, if the developer writes some code in C and uses GCC to compile the binaries and libraries, under the GNU Software License, they are obliged to provide the source code to their customer. That is one of the terms and conditions of using GCC.
Advocacy plays a vital role in promoting fair treatment and recognition for open standards contributors. By open standards, I mean things like HTML itself, formats of documents such as invoices, things like Word format and the open source alternatives like ODF. By raising awareness of their contributions and advocating for policies and practices that support their work, we can help ensure that their efforts are valued, respected, and duly compensated within the digital ecosystem.
We continue to rely on open standards to drive innovation and progress in the digital era, it's imperative that we recognize and protect the contributions of those who dedicate their time and expertise to shaping the standards that govern our digital infrastructure. By affording similar protections to open standards contributors as those enjoyed by artists in the music industry, we can foster a culture of appreciation, support, and respect that benefits the entire digital ecosystem. People should work together to ensure that the contributions of open standards contributors are valued, protected, and celebrated now and in the future. Looking at the support photographers and music artists get, the same should apply to technology designers behind things like the Web itself.
Sirui (lens maker) used a photograph from my UA-cam video and used it in a marketing campaign. I told them and they offered me nothing for it but I cannot afford lawyers to sue.
That;'s the problem for us little people.
Justice is for the rich.
Difference between work for hire (client owns copyright from conception), and creating work for sale (artist assigns the copyright). Every graphic artist/designer knows that, it's in our bible "The Handbook" from the Graphic Artist Guild.
Us fine artists have the problem that most of our clients are not professionals, and so they don't realise that we own the copyright of paintings we sell, even commissioned ones, unless we specifically sell the copyright as well ( which almost never do). I always explain this to my clients, but also say that if they did want to reproduce it, say, on a Christmas card for their own use, if they ask, I could give them written permission to show to a printer, which will state the limits of any use. In fact, when this has happened, I've not only given permission, I've helped them to find a good printer and guided them through the process, all without charge. But I leave them in no doubt that the copryright still remains mine, and I can allow its use however I choose, or not. I find if people know how it works from the start, they're fine with it. Much better than not mentioning it and then having a fight on your hands later.
Absolutely correct.@@alisonwilson9749
witht the other "unless" that being that they are an employee, then it is the business that has the copyright.
You can resell a product through first sale doctrine but you can't keep it once sold or sell it multiple times.
I have contributed to many large scale websites as an employee of large consultancies. I sure don’t own the code while employed, I’m pretty sure every project the client owns the code. I don’t disagree with the principle that one may retain copyright of their work (the website). I do dispute the notion that is the normal practice. I think it is more common for clients to own the code because they will take on the responsibility to maintain the website which requires changing the code.
Just make sure the contract involves the copyright is given to you as part of the deal. It's IP it can be sold.
I would love you to take a look into the Afroman situation in the states, where he is being sued for creating songs and music videos using his own personal CCTV of a no knock raid under dubious circumstances and is being sued in the states for it.
I would love to know where people stand in this country regarding the privacy of police recorded inside their homes. Hopefully I haven't missed a prior video on this, hope you're well!
This is a problem with video gaming. You don't own the game, you pay for a licence. Problem is in the digital realm, copyright owners have taken away the licence to play the game you've paid full price for and consumers have no legal recourse other than to boycott that publisher in future. Video gaming companies are not happy about the resale of physical (retro) second hand games either as they believe they are being deprived an additional sale of and revenue from that copy of the game.
Question
At the divorce the judge made a ruling, on the property, each parties settlement this was 15 years ago the property was never sold , now the ex wants to revisit the ruling and sell the empty property at the settlement judgement the judge made all them years ago
Do know if you want to use this question as a podcast
What's the best way to enforce a photography copyright claim?
Small claim at IPEC (assuming they ignore letters etc)
@@BlackBeltBarrister Thanks 😁
Great Content but you might like to do an extra video on Facebook and other social media sites who state that any images uploaded may be used for promotional purposes
An example following a tragic car crash on christmas eve an amateur photographer took images of the aftermath and uploaded them to social media and they went viral. However the amateur who uploaded was paid nothing. However I was working via an agency and took images 6-7 hours later which I was paid for as they were sold to the papers via the agency.
I'm sure you understand why but many who don't know how their pictures will get used. Happy to share examples if required
Cheers
Fascinating topic! Thanks!
If you change someone else’s photograph using editing software. When does that become yours? Similarly I believe as in if you change someone else’s product design sufficiently it becomes a new design
UK copyright service explains all that stuff, they have a very useful website.
What if some takes your photo outside at a Park (public property) publishes it online or sends it through email and does this just to laugh make a joke out of you. Is this ok?
I was commissioned to take photos of a property that was for rent (AirBnb). I went and took the photos, edited and delivered to the client and they didn't like them. Because I provided the service I still sent an invoice which has remained unpaid for years. Just last year I discovered that this person was using the photos on his website which are helping in renting out the property. I contacted multiple solicitors all over the UK and Northern Ireland and not a single person would deal with it. Do you have any recommendations?
We have all seen RR and LAND ROVER etc in china
Model or picture release form is designed to solve this issue
Daniel does that mean that someone can get in to trouble for using their own school photographs.
Are you really recording in RAW? Sure it'd not 10 bit Log? If so are you recording RAW are you recording via an external RAW recorder as very few cameras have internal raw unless it is RED, Blackmagic, Canon cinema camera, Arri or Nikkon Z9 for example. Just curious...
How do i find the copyright holder for a 50 year old photo from a defunct company's product photo to ask permission to use it ?
If you can't copyright a letter, how can Taylor Swift copyright a phrase? And how legitimate is that?
Copywriting a word is perfectly normal, isn't it?
What word has she copyrighted?
Maybe it's a very long phrase? She probably can't though.
@@eadweard.No.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the copyright lies with the owner of the drive or memory card in the camera, which in theory means if you own a camera with drive or card and you lend it to Cecil Beaton who takes a photograph with it, you own the copyright not him. I assume in analogue terms you would also own the copyright in an image exposed on emulsion film in the same circumstances.
I worked in a photo lab for many years processing and printing customer's orders.
Technically the copyright would still be with the artist that snapped the photo. If you were to hand your camera to them asking them to take a photo with you in it, they could claim the copyright. Them giving you the camera back after taking the photo and not asking for anything before walking away would imply they don't intend to copyright the image. Most people in this situation wouldn't put a copyright on such an image in this case.
Even though I'm a photographer and take the hobby quite seriously, I wouldn't copyright an image I took on behalf of a stranger with their camera.
You are wrong, happy to correct you.
In his book “Copyright for archivists and records managers” 6th. edition 2019, Dr. Tim Padfield states says that for the purposes of determining the first owner of copyright the author of a photograph taken between 1 July 1912 and 31 July 1989 is the owner of the material on which it was taken (for example, the negative). There is an exception for photographs that were commissioned for money, in which case copyright goes to the commissioner. Padfield does not discuss loaned equipment directly, but the implication is clear enough. However, the law changed in 1989. Since then the author has been the photographer himself - or rather, the person responsible for the composition, whether or not they actually press the shutter.
Source code is a language, applied tech, not artistic creation. Thus, to protect one's work, it would be licensed for use?
AI is being put to use Cloning everyone's content but we never get to find out who is responsible
"AI" and "cloning content" are all but mutually exclusive.
The only thing I don’t get is, if I take a picture of a picture, and the picture I took a picture of is copyright. Can I use my photograph in the public domain ?
Surely if the picture is copyrighted, you have no right to make a copy without permission of the copyright holder.
No, you're copying the picture and thus infringing the copyright.
@@gchecosse Provided the picture itself is out of copyright (artist has been dead for over 70 years) and the owner of the painting gave permission for the photo to be taken, and you took the picture, then AFAIK its fine. You can't pay copyright fees or get copyright permission if the work is out of copyright. But if the picture is in copyright, that's it, you need copyright permission and may have to pay a fee.
Its always bugged me how its seen as normal and ok that the photographer gets paid insane rates for a wedding and thinks on top of that they can keep the full copyright to exploit and use as they wish. I mean they serve only 3 purposes i xan think of keeping the rights.
1. They can use them in their portfolio etc but they normally ask for permission for that anyway so thats mute
2. So they can double or more charge you if you ever want more copies
3. To limit what you can do with it for no reason other than greed.
For software i get it becsuse you can reuse that code and make surface level changes to allow you to build the next requested one faster and therefor cheaper so you and the customer both benefit, they get cheaper products and you get to reuse it.
But even with software id fhe customer paid for a Greenfield project and covered the full costs with profit on top then if they said we cant reuse it id be fine with it and see no reason to charge extra.
To be fair, photographing an event is far more stressful than writing code. I would know, I do both.
Wedding photography is a scam in an age when everyone has a good camera in their pocket.
@@gchecosseEveryone has the choice of whether to book a professional photographer or ask friends or family to take photos with the good camera in their pocket.
@@gchecosse If you choose a wedding photographer who isn't any better than a randomer with a smartphone, you have chosen poorly. If you are happy with the photos that random guests are going to take, that's fine, just don't expect much. People pay wedding photographers a lot of money because they have been practicing for years, have thousands of £s of equipment, and spend a long time editing afterwards to create something wonderful.
what if someone commissions a photographer to take a portrait picture of them, surely they own some rights to that image/photograph?
The rights are what you would negotiate with the photographer. Normally this would be for personal non-commercial use. The photographer would own the copyright.
“Stunning code”??? This guy really doesn’t understands
I don't know, sometimes you just write really nice code that you are really proud of.
Hi Bbb at the start of some films on dvd there is copyright blurb with a reference to resale of the dvd. Please can you clarify if selling on original secondhand dvds is legal, thanks
Of course it's legal.
For the U.S. research the first sale doctrine.
It is. Secondhand books too.
If an individual owning some copyright, then implicitly allowing licence to others to use the material copyrighted, can they have any way to gain personally from the copyright, or is it just a valueless bit of ‘property’? Does copyright ownership for an individual have any real value for them? Is there any value, say, that can be left in a will?
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If I take a photo of you, that photo is of little use to me after you (hopefully) buy it, and you probably can't make much money selling it on, so it has little monetary value there. If I take a photo of a nice hill, that photo could be sold to multiple people, but those people shouldn't be allowed to sell it on themselves, so the copyright does have monetary value in that case. Also, it stops you from editing the images in a way that might cause others to not look favourably on our work.
@@praetorian65 So the value of copyright is its power to potentially increase the price when you sell, by increasing the likelihood you are the only seller. I suppose shared copyright does the same when any copyright owner sells what is copyrighted.
@@praetorian65 Maybe the copyright has very little value if your are otherwise constrained from selling, such as by some kind of agreement.
How did the process go so wrong with the photograph of Catherine?
I don't think that had any relation to copyright, did it?
It's great to see you taking on something worthwhile instead of representing the royal family. Truly.
Please amend the video's title. Copyright may be infringed, but not stolen. Copying is not theft.
It feels like theft when someone does it to you, believe me.
@@alisonwilson9749I'm an author, and a former police officer. I'm familiar with copyright infringement, and with the definition of theft. If someone copies my books and puts them on Z-Library, for example, nothing is stolen from me... I am not permanently deprived of my books. I simply don't receive royalty payments for books that people might copy or download for free.
Theft has a very precise definition in Law, and Blackbeltbarrister loses credibility in the eyes of anyone familiar both with copyright and with the definition of theft when he posts a video with 'copyright theft' in the title. It was media corporations and software companies who first used 'copyright theft' and 'piracy' as emotive terms in spite of and contrary to their proper legal definitions, and they did so purely because 'copyright infringement' didn't sound 'criminal' enough for their liking. It might 'feel' like theft, but feelings butter no parsnips where the law is concerned.
There is no difference
Log file? Did you mean LUT file? ahaha honest mistake no doubt just funny given the context
Does this work the same way for the Royal Family?
How would it not?
yes. Why wouldn't it??
Yes. The King owns a copyright in any software he develops or photos he takes.