Copyright law on Photo's

[Captain Wesker]

Hi there,

 

Hoping for some general information. I had a photo of myself and the partner taken in a studio, which we got one copy. They want £400 for a second copy(they can nob right off) so I am just going to scan it and print it myself.

 

Apparently this is a breach of copyright law? However as far as I am aware, the copyright lies with the subject, not the taker, as it's my Image that's been taken and I have not signed anything to say they have full rights or been paid any kind of image licensing fee.

 

Correct me if im wrong on this one? Links if possible.

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

did you pay for the copy?

 

if so game over.

it your property to do what you like but not sell

 

dx

[ukaviator]

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions. If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.

 

If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party. In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, so any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

[Captain Wesker]

But if its my image, surely the rights to it remain with me?

[ErikaPNP]

I'm not sure about copyright but when I was younger I used to do a bit of modelling. I had to sign a release form before the photographer could do anything with the pictures; like put them on his website for advertising, or in his portfolio of work

[Conniff]

It's not the photo subject, it is the creator of the work that owns the copyright.

 

He does not have to mark them copyright, that is assumed on creation.

[ukaviator]

Here is some more information for you to go through:

 

P-16: Photography and copyright

[andydd]

But if its my image, surely the rights to it remain with me?

 

Nope..thats like saying the copyright for famous works of art belongs to the screamer or the girl with flowers or 'david', the photographer would say its his 'art'and talent that created the photograph, the fact you are in it is irellevant, the law in the uk doesnt cover the subject, I can go out now and take pix of people, the copyright is with me.

 

Although if you scanned n printed the photo for your own personal use |I can't see how they would know about it.

 

Andy

[flyingdr]

Hi Andy

 

As everyone is saying, and the law The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states the the copyright is rest with the creator of the works. This can be assigned but is best to be done in writing. ( in a photographer he who presses the trigger)

 

If a photographer takes a photograph of let's say the Nike tick, The copyright in the photograph he created rest with him BUT the Nike tick is also a Trade Mark (subject to copyright) and the photographer could not sell the image as Nike would have an action against him for breach of their rights. This applies to many works of art and other obscure items (The London Underground Sign is one).

 

I will post a link here [url=http://www.salshuel.co.uk][/url]http://www.salshuel.co.uk which clearly explains the full extent of copyright and photography by an expert in copyright law, she acts as an expert witness and used to work for British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies BAPLA.

 

Getting to your situation, I think what you are being charged is extortionate. If you did copy the image you would be technically breaking the law! But we all do this when we copy things of the TV, copy music. They would have to find out then bring an action against you. The damages they would receive would be minimal.

Edited May 3, 2010 by flyingdr