Photography Copyright Law (The Good, The Bad, and the Grey Areas)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 кві 2019
- Photography copyright talk at the studio today - we were joined by Jason Hynes from Bereskin & Parr LLP. This is really amazing content. We're so happy Jason was willing to come in, and also that he allowed us to post this.
Again, as Jason says, this is educational, and not specific legal advice.
If you'd like to reach out to Jason directly,
Bereskin & Parr LLP, Waterloo Region
jhynes@bereskinparr.com
519.783.3214
-------
Thanks to / timothymuza for helping film!
I'm
/ taylorjackson
My bad for the 3/10 audio on the audience. Didn't realize how many questions there would be. Hopefully Jasons 15/10 content makes up for it!
Detailed information broo 😍
Thank you for the helpful knowledge!!!! Excellent presentation on copyright law for photographers. This is exactly what I am looking to learn right now to resolve my issue. I appreciate the organization and Jason Hynes for sharing this on the tube.
Great Video thanks for the hard work and making this available.
I got so much out of this. Thank you so much for sharing. I will have to really look into fair use as I continue as a photographer. Thanks again!
Thanks so much for this video!
Great video 👏🏾
Thank you
Hello there,
Question: I have seen some videos on UA-cam that show a watermark. Is this legal? Is this cool? Can these Youtbers get strikes for copyright infringement? Is this kind of thing appreciated or unappreciated by photographers? Asking because doing this myself on some projects would make things easier. But i don’t want to break any laws, do anything unethical, or step on any toes.
Thanks.
Hi Taylor - great video... but I'm still confused about a very specific scenario.. I recently bought hundreds of color slides from an estate sale here in the U.S.… the owner who had recently passed away bought them from various other estate sales… No one in the family has any idea who the original photographers are… these are the typical stuff, family photos, vacations in Europe etc… some are dated 1967 some as late as 1977.
Wondering what rights I have as the current owner with these in my possession?
Can I scan them and put them online for public view? Can I make videos / prints? If so how to I attribute them? Can I use them in my own original art and design work? Can I offer them to others to use in their own art and design? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated... and I'll probably end up hiring a lawyer :)
Id like to know if i bought a product from pictures posted online am i allowed to use throes pictures for resale?
Do you have any advice for contracts between yourself and second shooters? Would you be willing to share that contract?
looking for part two can you add it into the notes please.
Cool. So i learned that if i wanted to sell photos i take of branded toys/statues that legally i'm fine but i will probably be bullied into submission by other companies.
I just had a client cancel because my contract asks to tag me in social media shares of the photos. Thoughts? Am I wrong to ask to have rights to the photos I take? I even put in that I wouldn't sell the photos as there were minors in the group portraits.
I still have a question. In the case of the monkey photo. I can easily imagine a scenario were a photographer trying to photograph a rare animal do it by setting up a trigger to photograph when the animal passes in front of the camera. Will the resulting photograph be protected. In the case it is, why is it any different for the animal triggering?
You remind me of Jonah Hill, lol. Good vid
I am Jonah hill
and Jason reminds me of Philip Seymour Hoffman
Does social media accounts like Instagram & Linkedin count as a publication for the 90 day window?
Kiss’s make up is trade mark
Hahah! "The monkey owns the copyright" Now that's a slogan
I strap a gun to a tree and put a trip wire on the trigger. If someone steps on it and it shoots them, is that a suicide or did i murder them? Haha like come one man. Arguments like that are so dumb.
Great video btw thank you so much for posting this.
In the monkey case, trip wire would have meant the photographer got copyright. If it's a button to press, the monkey gets it even if they have no idea what they're doing.
Same concept though, No? The monkey pressed the button therefore it’s “his” photo. If the monkey tripped the wire wouldn’t it still be “his” photo according to the court because he is the one that technically took it by tripping the wire?
Didn’t think I’d be having a conversations about monkeys taking selfies today haha
@@TomNationTTV Hah I think there is more intent/framing/setup behind composing (which is one of the keys) a shot with a trip and then automating the shutter process. I still feel the selfie court verdict should have been that copyright goes to the photographer rather than the monkey, but totally see how it could have been argued the other way based on older words in the copyright book. Super interesting case though
Taylor Jackson Yea I get your point haha. Things like this really can get super complex
@@TomNationTTV I think it's more that your example isn't exactly comparable. Meaning, it should more read: "If I loaded a gun and set it down in the open and someone picked it up and shot themselves, am I at fault?". In that case, no, it's a suicide, however you may get charged for negligence regarding a firearm.
Good info, but kinda weird that he talks about transformational work with the photo of Obama but doesn’t attribute the Hope poster to Shepard Fairey or talk about the interesting case which stemmed from it. Shepard wound up being convicted of concealing evidence that he had used the AP photo.
Wwowogood
Darn its for Canada :(
this is great but i live in korea lol
Didn't the monkey use Dave's camera though? 😩
Why not go half and half considering it's a monkey? 😅