Venture Photography - Do we have a leg to stand on?

[buzby]

What a useful contribution!

 

Absolutely. What you overlook is that as the purchaser has instructed (and paid) for the photo session, the rights to their image remain with the purchaser. Now, if the photographer is wishing to retain their copyright, this has to be established and be explicitly agreed in ADVANCE with the customer, who can then make a decision whether to continue with the arrangement. It cannot be made retrospective. Additionally, the commissioner of the photo - especially in a studio setting, can prevent the photographer exploiting their image (unless a 'release' has been previously granted).

 

What I am suggesting is perfectly legal for the situation identified. Money has changed hands and the photographer has been paid. Since commercial exploitation or web use is not an issue here, I wholeheartedly support the previously advised action.

[Mossycat]

What a useful contribution!

 

Absolutely. What you overlook is that as the purchaser has instructed (and paid) for the photo session, the rights to their image remain with the purchaser. Now, if the photographer is wishing to retain their copyright, this has to be established and be explicitly agreed in ADVANCE with the customer, who can then make a decision whether to continue with the arrangement. It cannot be made retrospective. Additionally, the commissioner of the photo - especially in a studio setting, can prevent the photographer exploiting their image (unless a 'release' has been previously granted).

 

What I am suggesting is perfectly legal for the situation identified. Money has changed hands and the photographer has been paid. Since commercial exploitation or web use is not an issue here, I wholeheartedly support the previously advised action.

 

I suggest you read up on copyright law.

 

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Who%20owns%20the%20photo.htm

 

It's NOT a matter of 'if the photographer is wishing to retain copyright', the fact is the photographer does retain copyright and what you have suggested is NOT perfectly legal at all.

 

The law actually states....

 

If you commission a photograph you will only be the copyright owner if there is an agreement to assign copyright to you

 

And I don't think for one minute that a company specialising in this type of work (where they want the profit on reprints etc) will be assigning any copyright to customers, otherwise everyone would be doing as you suggest.

 

Mossy

Edited April 21, 2010 by Mossycat

[buzby]

Actually, as a former member of the National Union of Journalists, and a successful litigator on copyright infringements, there are many issues you overlook.

 

For example a picture I take can be modified creating a new work, and this can be limited to cropping and rotation, not wholesale manipulation and colour rebalancing, so whilst I'm happy for you to uphold Venture's profit margins as best you can - especially when they appear to use enhanced sales techniques to promote their bottom line. When money changes hands, there MUST be a contract specifying use (known as 'rights') if none are specified, then the commissioner has an expectation of usage for the purposes the require. For exploitation outwith the agreed terms, then additional rights can be negotiated. If no money has changed hands, then there is no expectation or rights assigned, so the photographer retains full control.

 

I know who my sympathies are with. Strange you don't share them.

[Mossycat]

Actually, as a former member of the National Union of Journalists, and a successful litigator on copyright infringements, there are many issues you overlook.

 

For example a picture I take can be modified creating a new work, and this can be limited to cropping and rotation, not wholesale manipulation and colour rebalancing, so whilst I'm happy for you to uphold Venture's profit margins as best you can - especially when they appear to use enhanced sales techniques to promote their bottom line. When money changes hands, there MUST be a contract specifying use (known as 'rights') if none are specified, then the commissioner has an expectation of usage for the purposes the require. For exploitation outwith the agreed terms, then additional rights can be negotiated. If no money has changed hands, then there is no expectation or rights assigned, so the photographer retains full control.

 

I know who my sympathies are with. Strange you don't share them.

 

Just because I am pointing out that your suggestion to the OP to buy a picture and then scan it (together with your tips on how best to do that) is illegal does not mean I sympathise with Venture, nor does it mean I am trying to increase their profit margins.

 

The fact remains on a public forum you have advised a member (and any number of other readers of this thread) to commit an illegal act, and trying now to hide behind a defence of 'creating a new work' is lame!

 

Mossy

Edited April 21, 2010 by Mossycat

[NottsChick]

I would actually be more than happy to pay a reasonable amount for each print that I need, at a size I would choose - I just don't want to pay for frames that I don't want, and I certainly don't want to pay £600 for images on a memory stick that I can't even print.

 

I will wait and see how my discussion with Venture goes before further comment as it's all assumption at the moment...

[buzby]

As the OP will have paid dearly for the photo session AND the photographs, you

(1) are in no position to comment on whether the photographs purchased are restricted in any way.

(2) are assuming that photo manipulation is in breach of copyright when it is not.

(3) that pictures that have been 'paid' for cannot be modified by the purchaser after sale.

 

The fact remains, that if the OP has agreed to restrictive terms preventing him doing what I suggest, then they should not be done, however as firms like these rely on tactics to exploit the sales potential of fancy frames and blown up enlargements, they are entitled to resist. As the purchaser they also have rights.

 

I would estimate I have over 1000 photographs 'out there' being used - I insist on payment for commercial exploitation, if someone is making a calendar for his granny then I'll licence reuse for no cost. If I was paid first, then I'd agree what could be done with the image. In the absence of this, the purchase is in the clear, as their (non commercial) purposes remain appropriate.

[Mossycat]

As the OP will have paid dearly for the photo session AND the photographs, you

(1) are in no position to comment on whether the photographs purchased are restricted in any way.

(2) are assuming that photo manipulation is in breach of copyright when it is not.

(3) that pictures that have been 'paid' for cannot be modified by the purchaser after sale.

 

The fact remains, that if the OP has agreed to restrictive terms preventing him doing what I suggest, then they should not be done, however as firms like these rely on tactics to exploit the sales potential of fancy frames and blown up enlargements, they are entitled to resist. As the purchaser they also have rights.

 

I would estimate I have over 1000 photographs 'out there' being used - I insist on payment for commercial exploitation, if someone is making a calendar for his granny then I'll licence reuse for no cost. If I was paid first, then I'd agree what could be done with the image. In the absence of this, the purchase is in the clear, as their (non commercial) purposes remain appropriate.

 

I suggest again that you read up on the current copyright laws with regard to photographs.

 

The OP does not have to agree to any restrictive terms, they are inherent, however if the OP wants to do what you have suggested then they need the permission of the copyright holder, which in this case is Venture Photography, and since they DO NOT DO THAT then I fail to see how the OP can legally do what you have suggested.

 

I notice now that you have changed your original tack from that of 'if the photographer wishes to retain their copyright' (which was total bollocks) to 'ooh lets now modify or manipulate the images'.

 

The fact is you were wrong to suggest it, wrong to state who actually owns the copyright and have potentially left yourself open to legal action from Venture Photography.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

As the OP will have paid dearly for the photo session AND the photographs, you

(1) are in no position to comment on whether the photographs purchased are restricted in any way.

(2) are assuming that photo manipulation is in breach of copyright when it is not.

(3) that pictures that have been 'paid' for cannot be modified by the purchaser after sale.

 

 

1) I actually clarified it with Venture before I posted my comments, that's called getting your facts straight, but you wouldn't understand that principle

 

2) I never said that

 

3) I never said that either

 

You are sneaking the words of points 2 and 3 into my mouth so you can defend your position by altering your stance from one of buy a print and scan it to one of buy a print and modify it, like I said earlier it's lame and now it's getting lamer.

 

Mossy

[buzby]

Heck - how much longer are going going on with this? If you can;t put it in to a single message, I'm not going to try and respond as I'll be too buy later on to hold your hand through your misunderstandings.

 

I've already explained in message #53 my experience. No requirement to reinvent the wheel, just read it again.

 

1) You clarified 'what' with Venture....? Perhaps we should be told?

 

As to MY points - I never quoted you, so I've no idea what you are on about. If you are not assuming these points, then why you are blowing hot and cold eludes me. Nothing better to do with your time perhaps, except ensure Venture's 'rights' and not infringed?

 

2 & 3) Excellent. So the OP can modify the supplied pictures to create a new 'work' ad avoid all your unrest about copyright breaches.

 

Now, moving onto 'getting my fact straight- and this will be of no relevance to the OP, but if money changes hands, the purchaser has the right to the full enjoyment of their purchase. Should they wish to scan and put them up on their website, I'm unaware of any restriction that will prevent them from so doing for private purposes.

 

If venture wish to prevent this, then they STILL will have to explicit bring in terms to exclude it in order to enforce such a restriction. I certainly have to (and have done) so since you seem to think magical restrictions subsist without needing to be stated, you (and they) are in for a shock.

 

Still, the point has been made. I'm off to earn some money - taking photographs, funnily enough. Strange I don't have to talk people into purchasing inflated cost prints, or lock memory cards to prevent reuse. My fee covers the lot - and I'm much cheaper than they are.

[electron99]

Mossycat. Buzby is never ever ever ever wrong - even when he/she is

[Mossycat]

1) You clarified 'what' with Venture....? Perhaps we should be told?

 

 

I would have thought that was obvious, but I'll spell it out for you.

 

I rang Venture and asked who owns/retains copyright on pictures they take, I did this because in one of your posts you specifically said that because the OP had commissioned the photographs that they therefore owned the copyright.

 

I thought you were wrong, so I checked your assumption out on a legal database and then with the Company involved to ascertain if they do assign the copyrights to the customer, and they confirmed that they don't.

 

Once I got my facts correct I posted accordingly, maybe you could try that sometime soon?

 

Mossy

Edited April 21, 2010 by Mossycat

[Mossycat]

Mossycat. Buzby is never ever ever ever wrong - even when he/she is

 

Yeah I think this thread has demonstrated that point

 

Mossy

[Bookworm]

Maybe I can clarify from personal knowledge without getting abused for once for contradicting he-who-must-not-be-contradicted?

 

I have a Venture album, and you DO have to sign an agreement prior to the photo session agreeing to their terms, it DOES explicitly forbids reproduction in any form or shape without their express consent (which they obviously won't grant), they DO retain copyright at all times, and just to make sure, they give you another copy of those terms wen you collect your pics. ;-) I would put up a copy of my agreement if I could access my filing cabinet!

[callumw]

Actually, as a former member of the National Union of Journalists, ....

In that case you should be familiar with the book, Beyond The Lense?

 

ref: pg.29

Current copyright legislation states that the copyright is owned by the 'author' of the work until 70 years after their death.

In the case of photography, the author is the photographer as stated in the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act.

 

The copyright owner (photographer) may then 'exploit' their copyright as they see fit - either selling it outright (don't know anyone that's done this) or by licensing the work to a company or individual.

 

The most a photographer will do is sell an worldwide exclusive license to a company so they have unlimited use of the image forever.

The photographer should expect a fee in the 5-6 figure range to sign this kind of deal ..... and they still own the copyright.

 

The 1991 and 1956 Copyright Acts stated that the commissioner (person or company) owned they copyright of the image. Added to which, the author used to be the person that owned the film at the time the photograph was taken.

This may be where Buzby's getting his lines crossed

 

As an ex member of the NUJ you'll know that Editorial usage is slightly different to private/commercial commission and centers around freedom of speech.

This is why Journo Photographers don't need model releases to have pictures of people published in the media (imaging trying to get model releases from an entire football stadium every match).

 

However the images taken are still the photographers unless...

1) They're hired as an employee of a company (newspapers etc)

2) They sign a contract that explicitly transfers copyright to the hiring party. Extremely rare and usually the only victims are photographers that don't read their paperwork before signing.

 

As a working photographer, I own the copyright for ALL my images I take, whether comissioned, charity or personal work.

 

I always include a License Release form with any digital image supplied so the recipient can use the images for their intended purpose.

However, if a private client buys only prints then they get no release and may not copy or alter my images without asking for my permission.

The Venture contract is only to iron clad the above, although they don't actually require the contract. It'll be a time/energy-saving exercise should someone breach copyright.

 

Digital versions of images normally cost 4x the cost of a print to cover potential reproduction revenue to the photographer.

 

A £16 10"x8" will cost about £60 and you can print it hi-res as much as you like (useful for actors headshots etc)

 

When I do private portrait sessions I charge £200 for up to 2 hours to let the subject relax and get some variety and I include 15 unframed prints up to 10"x8" (worth £240) in size as part of the session.

 

Which I think is a bargain in comparison to Venture.....

[callumw]

Now, moving onto 'getting my fact straight- and this will be of no relevance to the OP, but if money changes hands, the purchaser has the right to the full enjoyment of their purchase. Should they wish to scan and put them up on their website, I'm unaware of any restriction that will prevent them from so doing for private purposes.

 

The purchaser needs a license to reproduce the work, even if it's for Personal Use only.

The same legality as not being allowed to copy a CD or DVD that you've bought. You're buying the one item and are not allowed to reproduce it (not even for yourself).

 

I'm fairly relaxed about this so if a client calls then all I normally only ask where/what it's for (website etc) before giving my blessing. All I normally ask for is rights to a credit (my name tagged on or near the picture) and in fact I'll usually email over a web version so at least it'll be top quality and not a naff scan.

 

But if they don't call for approval first then it's a different matter....

 

I've only had one incident to date when a (corporate) client breached license terms. A quick phonecall and it was sorted out amicably without resorting to further measures

[NottsChick]

I would actually be more than happy to pay a reasonable amount for each print that I need, at a size I would choose - I just don't want to pay for frames that I don't want, and I certainly don't want to pay £600 for images on a memory stick that I can't even print.

 

I will wait and see how my discussion with Venture goes before further comment as it's all assumption at the moment...

 

I just want to update as we have just been for our viewing (very delayed due to my Dad's poor health). The photos are the best I have ever seen - the workmanship is incredible - and there was no hard sell at all. They really didn't need to as the product is so good. My husband is a photographer and was very impressed with the quality of the images.

 

We won't get the chance to do the session again so we each splashed out on a set of 3 prints, were able to negotiate a little, and are all happy with the outcome. Can't wait to see the finished product.

[BillyS]

Glad it all worked out for you. Despite our minor quality issues (all sorted with a little persuasion) and baulking at the price the standard does seem excellent.

[ScumbleDrinker]

Hi,

 

I don't normally reply to threads on forums - I just tend to use them for advice. In this case however, I think I can be of some use.

 

Until recently I worked for Venture as an 'Exhibition Stand Representative'. My job basically involved accosting people in shopping centres and selling them gift vouchers (£25 free photo etc). I'm obviously not going to give any more personal details because they're an ex-employer and I need references! Having read through this post and the various replies/responses I think I can be of some use to people thinking of going to Venture, or people who have had bad experiences with Venture.

 

Firstly if you wan't decent family portraits, in the style that Venture take them - go to Venture. A lot of smaller chains and independents will offer you a similar style but the quality will not be the same. I'm not saying this because I love the brand, it is unfortunately a fact of life. Venture franchises can afford the latest kit, the biggest studios and the best photographers.

 

Say for example you get accosted by someone like me who starts telling you about how wonderful Venture is and what a great 'experience' it would be, and you like the 'products' on the display and think it would be a nice idea. Here are some tips.

 

1. Ask for specific prices of products on the display stand. Representatives are trained to be vague and woolly about price - but they also get a hefty commission for each sale. I was trained to reply with a price range when asked about the price of a specific product. If you want to know how much something is going to cost, ask. If the representative gets vague, start walking away.

 

2. If you only want the free 7x5, that is OK. You are under NO OBLIGATION to spend any more money - no matter how hard the sell in the viewing room. It is however important NOT to say you only want the free 7x5. This is pretty much guaranteed to get you a hard sell. £25 for an hour in a photography studio and a nice photo is not a lot of money. Venture will give you that, so take it.

 

3. You do not have to buy the gift voucher to get the gift voucher offer (hour in the studio, free 7x5). If you are accosted you may notice the representative making notes, and they may ask for your contact details. They are filling in a form called a 'lead'. These leads are sorted at the studio with selected respondents being offered a complimentary studio session. I don't really want to say what the selection procedure is, in case someone from Venture sees this and I'm saying something that will get me into trouble, but it basically comes down to Venture's brand placement and target client base, taking into account the cost of the higher end Venture products.

 

4. You can buy the gift vouchers on-line or in the studio. The only difference with buying them on an exhibition stand is that the representative earns commission. No matter what the representative might say - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

 

5. If you are not happy with the session/viewing/resulting photos you can have your £25 back.

 

6. Go into the viewing room with a budget, but either don't tell anyone or tell them a figure lower than the actual amount you can spend. If you can spend £400, tell them you can spend £250.

 

I hope this helps clear some things up, and if anyone else has any questions I will be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability - whilst of course maintaining my anonymity!

 

I will finish by saying that I have no bad feelings towards Venture. I never encountered any of our photographers/viewers doing any hard selling. I left the job because I couldn't meet my targets - mainly because I couldn't bring myself to sell to people who wouldn't be able to afford the prices and I'm not really cut out to be a salesman.

 

Bottom line - if you can afford to spend £1000+ on family portraits you can do a lot worse than Venture.

[buzby]

Groupon are today featuring a 'bargain' family portraiture session for around £25 saving a supposed 89%. CAGgers may want to re-acquaint themselves with this firms techniques in the thread above so they know what to expect.

[donna1981xx]

I also have a horror story! But it's very different and i don't know what to do.

I was approaced a few weeks before Christmas by a woman selling venture gift vouchers, i had been thinking about having a family picture took of myself and my 4 kids and i mentioned that my mum wanted a photo of all her 10 grandchildren, so she perked up with "well we are offering 2 vouchers for £35, each voucher entitles you to an hour photo session and a one free print" i thought this was a great deal and bought right away.

From boxing day till new years day we had one of my husbands children staying with us, we only see a few times a year as they live far away so we thought it would be nice to have a picture of all 5 kids. i rang venture to arrange a session naming all 5 kids. Unfortunately my youngest boy and myself came down with a nast flu and we had to cancel.

My mum, my sisters, my brother, my self and 10 kids went to a different studio last week (i don't live near my family) it was a lovely day and went well. Then i came home and rearranged my own session for this coming sunday. Today the photographer called me just to "introduce herself" she asked if she could confirm the names of my 5 kids at which point i informed her that one of the kids was not mine and he would not be attending..the responce i got has shocked and insulted me! She told me that my husband and his kids MUST attend to validate the voucher, it is a FULL FAMILY voucher. I told her that his kids live far away and we don't see them, i told her that he is not the father to my kids so i just want myself and MY children, they said this is not possible!

We have a complicated family, having seperate children and this is a very common situation in 2011! how can i be turned away for having a different kind of family..are they allowed to do this? I paid for a voucher and at the time told the woman that it was myself and my kids..she never told me that i had to take my whole family!

[noo99]

Hi everyone

 

I've used venture twice over the last 9 years. 1st time was just my two children and it captures a moment in time that will never be repeated. I have 4 photos in one frame. The second time was when my husband left and I wanted a photo of myself and the children. I initially tried a local phorographer and was extremely disappointed in his photos so decided to go back to venture and they did us proud once again. I bought a large photo of the 3 of us and 4 smaller free standing ones of the children. My daughter was reading a book on one of her photos and they were able to removed the obvious white label from the back of the book and the main picture is of myself lying on the floor with my daughter on top of me and my son taking a flying leap over the top of us!

 

I did pay a decent price for these photos but all of them are on display in my sitting room and are truely works of art. I wasn't pressurised to buy but the images spoke for themselves. In fact I think it might be a good time to revisit the studio for an update photo! If you can't afford it - just don't go. I feel it's worth it to have a fantastic photo on my wall as a reminder of my family life.

 

Anna

 

[girlsunday]

Hi all, we had a similar bad experince with Venture. We were approached by a Venture employee at their stand in the Eden shopping Centre in High Wycombe and asked to complete a questionaire which we did then a couple of days later we were cold called by their telesales team and informed that we had been selected to receive a session with a free 7x5 photo at the Venture Marlow studio. My family and I went along the session, the staff were all smiles and laughter and we were offered a choice of hot drinks and were made to feel comfortable. When the session had finished I nearly fainted when I was told that the pictures that I was interested in purchasing were going to cost over £1200. They looked nice but I really don't see how they can justify that price. We declined the offer although the young lady who was taking our session was quite insistant and persuasive but we dug our heels in and said that we may consider this at a later date but we would take our 'free' 7x5. Well, the smile and the laughter soon disappeared and the young lady looked visibly annoyed and was quite terse. She told us that as we were not going to purchase any pictures then the session was over and proceeded to prompt us to move downstairs and out of the main door without a word of thanks, just a goodbye. My husband thought that the whole attitude of the staff was very rude and he has written to their Head Office to complain. We were very disappointed with the whole Venture experience at the Marlow studio and would have no hesitation in NOT recommending them to anyone. Save your money and go elsewhere.