posted June 19, 2008 10:58 AM            

The OEF/EC and other related organizations, including horse/riding organizations could support the peripheral industries by promoting a photography policy.

Why support the peripheral industries?

Because they advertise in the programs, they advertise on the websites (see the top of this screen) and financially support the equine industry with their services and products. Pictures get used in magazines, newspapers, websites, promotion for stables, breeding, sales, service. Memories in the form of a picture of a great day with one's horse are priceless.

posted June 19, 2008 01:12 PM            

Irfanview is free, and allows for water marking.

posted June 19, 2008 02:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by badaboom:
I know one professional Photographer that has taken down their website completly. Photos are now only available to those that request and pay a deposit up front.

This Photgrapher was sick of fighting with people over the use of their pictures on Equine.com and on sale flyers.---WITH THE COPYRIGHT PRINTED ON THE PIC!!!!

Sorry guys--but if you aren't straight enough in business to purchase your photos what makes you think I'd even consider buying a horse from you????????

---

posted June 19, 2008 02:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda Tourangeau:
Take this past weekend for example, I drove all the way to Palgrave took about 100 stunning images and found out the show had a photographer, I didn't know. So the entire days was a complete waist of time for me and lost money instead of making money. Not to mention all those beautiful images are now going to be tossed. oh well you live and learn ...

[This message has been edited by Amanda Tourangeau (edited June 17, 2008).]

---

posted June 22, 2008 04:18 PM            

I was visiting my local framer recently and he showed me a photo he had just framed....it was an obviously scanned & home printed "photo finish" picture of a Standardbred racehorse in a 16 x 20 size. The photo was pixelated and very dark. The custom framing was over $300.00. We both couldn't believe that someone would go to the expense of proper framing, and use such a horrible photo to save a few bucks on a print. My friend actually tried to talk the client out of spending the money on the framing, but she thought the photo was fantastic. Pretty sad. I think with everyone viewing their photos on a computer screen which can only show a limited level of quality, people have no idea of what a properly produced photo will look like, therefore they don't see the value of buying a custom professional print.

I also shoot many weddings (or used to!) and now all everyone wants is a CD with proofs. They never do get the photos printed, and down the road they will have nothing. No one knows for sure how long a CD will last, and if your computer crashes, you have zip. Unfortunately most good wedding photographers I know have packed it in as there's no profit in the business. Soon all you will find are cut rate amateurs waving their digital cameras around. I recently taught a course on wedding photography, and three out of five participants had weddings booked for this summer, with no idea how to go about actually shooting one. When I asked them if they had backup equipment, they just looked blank, then one said " why? my camera's fairly new and it should be fine. Sounds great, until something goes wrong....I'm sure the bride will forgive you for ruining the photos. Of course, I'm sure she knows you get what you pay for.

posted June 23, 2008 07:18 AM            

I would like to be able to get proofs of photos, but haven't really investigated it yet -- for use as reference in art work. I think though I'm going to have to rely on my own photography since buying prints of all kinds of random horses would be too expensive.

posted June 24, 2008 09:17 AM            

It's not often I would want to outright copy a photo anyway - because it's not my style; but as reference they're valuable. That is - what does a horse's neck look like when it's going 40 mph playing polo -- that sort of thing, or how the size of a foal relates to that of a mare; where all the feet go, sometimes a photo can serve just as a reminder. For sculpture - photographs might be necessary, although Charles M. Russell didn't use photos as far as I know, and there aren't many who can come close to the life and action in his work.

I draw from life often, and when I get my act together and produce more, I'll support drawings with photographs and do something final from that. Just drawing or painting from photos alone can lead to flatness. --

However, there are some *gorgeous* photos out there that one would like to put into a painting. But - I couldn't do it knowing there's a photographer out there who did the original work, and that it wasn't my experience.

Some of the best that I've seen are amateur photos; I'm just as interested in casual photos as professional photos, some of them are priceless. But still, so far my own are preferable.

Saw a gorgeous camera - an ALPA - I inquired and they sent me the brochures, plus the email of an artist who uses the camera in her work. Just the basic camera is about $3000, maybe more. It goes either digital or 35mm, made in Switzerland.

posted June 28, 2008 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella:
Something that absolutely stuns me is that people don't seem to care about the inferior quality of an amateur scan that doesn't include editing, colour correction, cropping, etc. which is what we professionals do routinely before printing a photo.

---

I used to shoot 8 x 10 transparencies so could barely stomach the quality of 35 mm! I think people need to see side by side comparisons to realize what icky is . I won't even print 4 x 6 snaps at home on an inkjet.

I have a cheap 8 MP digital now and have no problem paying for professional pics of my guys at shows since I don't want to cough up the big bucks for suitable equipment and also can't figure out how to ride and photograph at the same time . When you don't take tons of pics, you get a little sloppy too, with background, timing and focus, I find. I also give prints to friends as gifts as I would never give them an enlargement from my equipment.

It is funny that some pay mega bucks to have their horse braided, clipped, groomed, trained, trailered, entered whatever and won't cough up a few bucks for a gorgeous memento of it. I assume it is more ignorance than cheapness though as a big 3 day photographer in the states said she sells more from the local grasshopper competitions than from the international ones.

posted June 30, 2008 12:45 PM            

a photographer- that i DID NOT HIRE- takes pictures- WITHOUT MY PERMISSION- of a horse - THEY DO NOT OWN......they publish the pictures- of a horse THEY DO NOT OWN- being ridden by my UNDERAGE CHILD on a PUBLIC WEBSITE and they do not image protect the pictures- but stamp them across the front with their name and contact info.

WHO OWNS THE IMAGES?

That being said- I always end up either on the day of or later buying about 100.00 of the pictures and undoubtedly adding the ones I didnt buy to my webshots- complete with the stamp- do I feel guilty- ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Ive gone to a show to see that the picture that is in the frame that the photographer is using to sell their services is MY HORSE WITH MY CHILD..........

posted June 30, 2008 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amc2:
IMO-

a photographer- that i DID NOT HIRE- takes pictures- WITHOUT MY PERMISSION- of a horse - THEY DO NOT OWN......they publish the pictures- of a horse THEY DO NOT OWN- being ridden by my UNDERAGE CHILD on a PUBLIC WEBSITE and they do not image protect the pictures- but stamp them across the front with their name and contact info.

WHO OWNS THE IMAGES?

That being said- I always end up either on the day of or later buying about 100.00 of the pictures and undoubtedly adding the ones I didnt buy to my webshots- complete with the stamp- do I feel guilty- ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Ive gone to a show to see that the picture that is in the frame that the photographer is using to sell their services is MY HORSE WITH MY CHILD..........

thats just my opinion.

---

your response is just sad if this pertains to someone taking photos at a show. Most likely the show arranged for someone to be there for - people like you - to purchase pictures of your child riding. Something you may not have had time for.

I am surprised these photographers keep at it and continue to do this when - people like you - steal from them afterwards.

Maybe you should approach the show organizer and the photographer and specifically tell them that you don't want your child photographed. Then it is up to you to get those beloved shots and no one will be using your child to advertise their services and you won't have pictures to download/steal off someones site.

just my opinion.

By the way - I do believe it is still the photographer who owns the images.

posted June 30, 2008 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnDeeregirlz:
I have looked through most of the replies but not all, so please forgive me if someone has already mentioned this.

I had seen this post the other day but thought nothing of it until I went online to view some photos from a show this past weekend. What I did notice was that the photographer had not put watermarks on his photos, BUT they had been locked so that you could not copy & paste them. Therefore they could not be stolen. I have seen this on many websites before as well. Is it really that simple and if it is why don't all photographers do this so they don't have to worry about the above mentioned issue?
Comments anyone?

---

You can lock, or disable right click, in the pages, but for some reason i cannot get it to work on mine.

This only keeps the people who do not want to take the time to figure out how to load them on their own computer. It can still be done, but it takes some time, and most people don't wait anymore.:-)

TB

posted June 30, 2008 03:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ride on:
For those who speak of expensive photos, try this scenario.

- One photographer
- 10 hour day photographing
- $5000 in equipment
- mileage
- meals
- cost of running vehicle
- living accomodations
- 6 hours of editing time on top of the 10 hours of photographing
- internet for emailing proofs
- expenses in producing proofs
- time spent in matching pictures with entry numbers
- time spent distributing photos to POTENTIAL buyers

All this done for a one day or two day show, maybe a week show.

In many cases a liveable wage is generated perhaps over two days average per week?

Would that net out more than a stall mucker?

My thought is a photographer takes 10 pix of your horse and you buy only the best one. What's the return on the cost of doing business with you?

No, using the proofs or pictures without paying something is unethical.

---

SOOOO well said

As a photographer I udnerstand this, as people wanting a service provided for them, they always want it at a lower cost. Im sure you'd love if your lessons were only 20$ instead of 40$ but its not reasonable. how can one financially support themselves based on lowering their already reasonable prices for photos if they're barely making ends meet.

You dont understand how much goes into each photograph. Endless hours of editing, taking the photos, the purchasing of the equipment and the PRINTING! I know I do some of my own printing, so I save a little there, but when it comes to printing over the summer, I have to outsource. It gets expensive. If I were to charge only 30$ for an 8 x 10 (at a horse show) if I had it printed at a top quality lab, im looking at spending probably 7-10$.

If I need to ship it to you, you either whine about an added shipping charge, or I mail it out with the money already paid, (Clearly express, because its faster, and safer, wont ruin the images). There goes another 6- 10$ depending on how far away you are from me.

If im charging the 30$ that then leaves me with 10$. I'm looking at the fact that I have to clear at least 15 photos a day to make on par with a decent hourly rate.

In addition to the price, the images STILL belong to me, even if you buy them. If you want the right to re-produce my images, you either have to buy them from me, or by the rights from me. Which you're looking at it being probably double the cost.

You would all be appauled if someone told you to drop your hourly rate, I dont understand why you feel its necessary to tell others to drop theirs.

posted June 30, 2008 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amc2:
IMO-

a photographer- that i DID NOT HIRE- takes pictures- WITHOUT MY PERMISSION- of a horse - THEY DO NOT OWN......they publish the pictures- of a horse THEY DO NOT OWN- being ridden by my UNDERAGE CHILD on a PUBLIC WEBSITE and they do not image protect the pictures- but stamp them across the front with their name and contact info.

WHO OWNS THE IMAGES?

That being said- I always end up either on the day of or later buying about 100.00 of the pictures and undoubtedly adding the ones I didnt buy to my webshots- complete with the stamp- do I feel guilty- ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Ive gone to a show to see that the picture that is in the frame that the photographer is using to sell their services is MY HORSE WITH MY CHILD..........

thats just my opinion.

---

The photographer owns the image and has every right to use the image as long as they are not selling the image for money. if they're advertising themself thats fine, if they're selling it to a publication, they need the written consent of the individual on the horse and their parent if they are underage to release all claims to the photograph. (what in the business we call a model release).

posted June 30, 2008 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by QhChick:
Like the CAW, I think photographers can often price themselves out of the market.

If I'm buying a 8 X 10 for $120 dollars, I'm sure as hell going to make my own copies of it for giving the winning pictures to the correct individuals (coach, trainer, etc.) The thought that I have to pay $400 for 3 - 8 X 10's, 5 - 4 X 6's.. is robbery and taking advantage of people when they most want to brag!

---

posted June 30, 2008 03:47 PM            

I have been an equine photographer (competitions and farm shoots) for over 20 years. I registered my small business 10 years ago.

However, I am not a photographer full-time. To be frank, I can't afford to be. I am lucky enough to have a full-time job that I love, which has hours that can accommodate my photography. Plus, I have medical/dental coverage and insurance through my full-time career. Many, however, do not.

As a photographer and freelance journalist, I spend every weekend from the end of April til early October at shows, farms, events etc. I sell photos to private customers (owners/riders/sponsors), magazines, advertisers, calendars, and others.

I love my life as a photographer, but it definitely does not generate enough income to live on. One earlier post did a rough calculation of expenses photographers face and it's fairly accurate.

Another earlier post read "I find it is funny that some pay mega bucks to have their horse braided, clipped, groomed, trained, trailered, entered whatever and won't cough up a few bucks for a gorgeous memento of it." I totally agree.

People are always posting on this website and others, as well as emailing me personally, to see their proofs. This enthusiasm is great. However, besides magazines etc., my best private customers are those showing trillum, schooling, pony clubs and fairs.

Sure you can buy a nice little digital camera, do point-and-clicks and get some nice shots. As a photography, I have no issue with this.

But also please appreciate the time, training and financial investment of the professionals out there. Do not shoot over their shoulders. If they come to your show, offer them water or a complimentary lunch. Do not be shy about asking for extra photos taken of your round, or no photos at all if a family member or friend is handling that end of things for you.

posted June 30, 2008 05:16 PM            

Re: above quote: So it's o.k. to steal them if you don't actually like them. Hmm, I'll have to try that next time I go shopping..."hey this sweater isn't that attractive, so I'll just take it" or " I'm not really fond of brussels sprouts, so I won't pay for those" .... see how far I get with THAT.

I have never heard so many excuses for breaking the law. Like I said earlier, if I catch anyone copying my photos, I now invoice them for a lot more than what I normally charge. And as I also said earlier, there are excellent photographers with many years of experience who have given up on the profession. There will come a day when all you will find are the amateurs undercutting each other.

posted June 30, 2008 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella:
"I was going to buy some pictures from my last horse show but I didn't like the photo's. I copied them onto my computer for reference but I didn't show anybody, put the up anywere, email them - nothing."

Re: above quote: So it's o.k. to steal them if you don't actually like them. Hmm, I'll have to try that next time I go shopping..."hey this sweater isn't that attractive, so I'll just take it" or " I'm not really fond of brussels sprouts, so I won't pay for those" .... see how far I get with THAT.

I have never heard so many excuses for breaking the law. Like I said earlier, if I catch anyone copying my photos, I now invoice them for a lot more than what I normally charge. And as I also said earlier, there are excellent photographers with many years of experience who have given up on the profession. There will come a day when all you will find are the amateurs undercutting each other.

As far as disabling the "right click" option, there are many ways around that as well, so it only stops those with very basic computer skills.

---

posted July 01, 2008 04:49 PM            

I dont for a second buy that images, of my child and my horse, taken without my permission and posted on a public website by a photographer- are the propoerty of the photographer- as soon as they post them on the public internet they are public- they can lock them if they want or upload them onto a site like webshots that doesnt allow the downloads without payment- that is the reason WHY they stamp them across them to make them unuseable for anything but proofs. If i want to link to the stamped images that i didnt buy in addition to the 8x10s that were the best shots that i did buy it is both perfectly legal and ethical.

There is a simple resolution to this for a photographer that is legitimately worried that they are incurring financial harm by doing this- have your booth near the registration booth- and have people sign up in advance to have you take pictures of their child or horse only if they want to buy them- show them the images right after the class and print out the ones they buy.......no....why not- it will reduce the ones that buy later...so lets realize that this is advertising costs of your doing business because it increases your purchase rate not decreases.

that is what i did with these great pictures at a pony club zonal championship a few years back at blacks. spoke with the show photographer in advance, said pay particular attention and get great shots of my daughter- and Ill buy them. in addition if you get a few minutes and "happen" to take posed pictures of her on her pony, Ill buy them too- and i did- both the printed and digital images. so the key is know your customer and TAKE GREAT PICTURES. http://pets.webshots.com/photo/1455958380056430320dSFiic

posted July 01, 2008 10:39 PM            

Not only that but you attitude about it in this thread is just beyond me.

Correct me if I am wrong but you haven't actually told photographers to stop taking photos of your child at shows yet have you?

How do you justify being upset if you haven't?

It doesn't make sense to me other then calling it a lame *$$ excuse for stealing (which is what it is).

I aspire to be a photographer but I will never go the show route specifically because of people who have the same mindset as you :/

posted July 01, 2008 10:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serafina:
I find it really disheartening amc2 that you are so offended that a photographer at a show takes pictures of your child but yet you are quite willing to take the proofs and display them in your photobucket and elsewhere and I would not be surprised if you have shown them to people (family) and possibly even bragged this is your child...

Not only that but you attitude about it in this thread is just beyond me.

Correct me if I am wrong but you haven't actually told photographers to stop taking photos of your child at shows yet have you?

How do you justify being upset if you haven't?

It doesn't make sense to me other then calling it a lame *$$ excuse for stealing (which is what it is).

I aspire to be a photographer but I will never go the show route specifically because of people who have the same mindset as you :/

[This message has been edited by Serafina (edited July 01, 2008).]

---

Lets be clear here- I am NOT upset- or offended. I am merely taking an oppositional opinion to the original one stated in this thread.

Like it or not- I think it is fair game that if a photographer takes a picture in a public place, without the expressed permission of the subject- and publishes said picture, unprotected on a public website- they have no more right to the picture than the subject has.

simply my opionion-

posted July 01, 2008 11:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amc2:
Lets be clear here- I am NOT upset- or offended. I am merely taking an oppositional opinion to the original one stated in this thread.

Like it or not- I think it is fair game that if a photographer takes a picture in a public place, without the expressed permission of the subject- and publishes said picture, unprotected on a public website- they have no more right to the picture than the subject has.

simply my opionion-

---

posted July 01, 2008 11:49 PM            

Copyright laws, only support cases of COMMERCIAL INFRINGEMENT, and enforcing these laws ordinarily involves suing those who sell violating products, not preventing them from making copies.

The internet creative commons license laws (which is what all shared content on the internet is based on) allows others to share and adapt publicly posted content for non-commercial purposes, as long as they attribute the contnt to the initial contributer (ie the photographers own brand across the photo)

Because I am not a commercial entitity and am neither selling nor profiting from the display of the content I am not in breech of the spirit or letter of these internet based regulations.

Canadian and US based copyright laws deal wtih this in their "fair use" clauses. allowing you to add content if it is in the public domain for non-commercial purposes.

Additionally they deal with a photographers-by outolining a number of other considerations that restrict their rights to take or publish photographs for commercial user. For example a photograph of a person may infringe their right to privacy.

dusted off the copyright books folks-
these pictures are
- taken in the public domain
- without expressed permission
- posted on the public domain
- without license
- the creator has the responsibility to protect their creation- and did not
- the images clearly reference the creator so are not represented as created by anyone else
- are not used for commercial use

When I go to a show, I pay for the show, not the photographs-
I still will continue to purchase good photographs when I see them at shows (saves me the time and trouble from taking them myself).

posted July 02, 2008 03:46 AM            

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a cow about it and I actually understand your concern about pictures of your child being posted without your permission (although I really can't see in the modern world how that could ever be policed) but as I understand it your concern is with unknown/unacknowledged use of a person's likeness, is it not? (As an example, what if someone in a hunt pic, say, was skipping off work sick and was concerned about an employer or fellow employee seeing a picture of them galavanting about the countryside?)

Or is the argument that anyone has a complete right to any picture in which they are portrayed? Up to and including not having to pay for any such image?

Or is it only commercial images you see a problem with? Is it the selling of the photos by advertising them publicly you disagree with? Then how can you justify facebook, photobucket, etc? They are all open sites FULL of pictures that anyone can view - and steal - at any time. (Locking is a joke - I"m amazed at what my relatively low rent computer can copy and paste!)

This is a bit the problem with this subject these days. Lots of people do feel they have the right to do whatever they want with any image of themselves. Then this expands to include any image of themselves regardless of how other people in the photo might feel. Then to any photo they might like . . . .

Obviously you have a thorough knowledge of the legal issues - far more than me - but it seems you are arguing the spirit of the law rather than the letter. We all acknowledge that posting commercial photos taken in a public place IS perfectly legal but you seem to be saying it's unethical . . .?

posted July 02, 2008 09:17 AM            

If the person who took the photo (commercial or otherwise) has it on their website for sale and has the photo copyright marked and/or their name on it and you take it for your use you are infringing on copyright. Even if they don't have their name on it they are still the owner of the photograph.

If the person who took the photos has a contract with the show unless otherwise stated in the contract the show owns the rights to the photos. If the photographer has it stated in the contract that they retain the rights then the photographer owns the photos.

Either way amc2 you are guilty of copyright infringement for taking said photos from any photographer and posting them anywhere on the net and any one of them could sue you if they felt like it.

posted July 02, 2008 09:35 AM            

While I tried to read all of the responses I may have missed this.

As far as I can see NO ONE has mentioned the privacy legislation in Ontario !!!!

Technically, no one should be taking photos of anyone and posting them upon a 'public' site especially of children without the consent of the person being photographed.

posted July 02, 2008 10:32 AM            

I think it's getting to be pretty onerous, and it's going to affect the arts. There's a very good talk on Ted Talks by an English education expert, on how copyright laws are affecting the ability of young people to re-interpret their culture.

Would Renoir, or Degas be able now to go to a park and paint people having a picnic, or would that be a violation of privacy? Degas did paint horses at the track.

Will any artist now be able to go to a park and draw or paint the people in it, without being sued?

Just as a possibility, I could take a group of photographs of horses jumping, and take them apart or re-tint them, or change them in some way that would make a statement about horses used in sport -- which would be a deeper message than just a photograph. However, I'd probably be sued, or someone would complain; so there goes one more possibility of saying something meaningful to the world about the topic.

Not that I don't sympathize with the photographers who are trying to make a living with photography, but I really wonder how much control you can expect to exert into the future.

What about newspaper photographs? I know you can go to the Calgary Herald and buy original photos from Spruce or the Stampede, but using them out of the paper, I don't know.

posted July 02, 2008 10:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serafina:
k after researching and calling for information here is how it works in a nutshell from what I understand from CAPIC http://www.capic.org/index.html

If the person who took the photo (commercial or otherwise) has it on their website for sale and has the photo copyright marked and/or their name on it and you take it for your use you are infringing on copyright. Even if they don't have their name on it they are still the owner of the photograph.

If the person who took the photos has a contract with the show unless otherwise stated in the contract the show owns the rights to the photos. If the photographer has it stated in the contract that they retain the rights then the photographer owns the photos.

Either way amc2 you are guilty of copyright infringement for taking said photos from any photographer and posting them anywhere on the net and any one of them could sue you if they felt like it.

[This message has been edited by Serafina (edited July 02, 2008).]

---

people get very confused when it comes to suing.....the truth is- can they file suit- absolutely.....but when they get there - they have to PROVE DAMAGES.....to either intellectual propoerty- or that I commercially gained. they would have to prove that their item was unique and a work of art- or that I in some what copied it to make it look like it was mine. (ie if I copied their picture and used it in a book for sale without their permission).

None of these items would provide damages- so would be a pretty useless waste of their time and money........

i keep reading responses that indicate that I am upset that a photgrapher took pictures of my child....i couldnt care less.... my point- was that i didnt agree that they had such overriding ownership of those images that I could not put the proofs on my personal website for myself.

I am one who buys from these folks- and in fact find value in someone else taking the pictures so that I can enjoy the day and not worry about taking pictures- my walls and drawers are full of years of pictures from pony club events- probably less than 10% that I took- (btw also have an expensive digital camera and a professional digital photo printer- but prefer to not have to bother taking the pictures).

my point that ill reiterate for the last time and then leave others to continue this thread- is that the photographer took the shot, and claimed ownership of a personal immage (the likeness) and then displayed these on the PUBLIC INTERNET without bothering to protect them other than a watermark- shoudl not complain whne the subject of the images saves the watermarked images for personal, non commercial use. if they care that much they should spend 5 min and 5$ and protect the images properly.

posted July 02, 2008 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anna68:
I've been reading this thread and I feel I must reply to amc. I followed your link to see a whole album of my photographs taken from last years dressage championships. I suppose you didn't like them very much as I don't remember you ordering. And that's okay.
Generally, I don't get too upset when I see my photos all over facebook and sales pages. I figure it's a hazard of today's day and age. What am I going to do, sue?
I have only been taking photos for about 5 years now but I consider it more of a hobby. I barely make enough money to cover my costs.
I was at a pony club dressage show last weekend. I barely had time to inhale a burger let alone download and print out photos. I would be losing money if I hired someone to do it. I am not going to bring my expensive printer to a dusty barn either. The only companies that can do this is people like action pix who hire someone for everyone ring and then someone to be at the booth.
Besides I take hundreds and hundreds of photos. The photographs in RAW which are huge files and take forever to download. I spend hours upon hours in front of my computer organizing and cropping photos before I put them online. My philosophy is that I want someone to see "exactly" what they are buying. For those who don't buy, then I do it for the kids. Kids love to see pictures of them and their ponies even if their parents can't afford to buy them. (or won't)
Lately, I am seriously considering not doing shows anymore. I don't ask for payment to stand there for 9 hours. Or payment for spending another 12+ hours on a computer. The only payment I get, is when someone orders a photo.
By the way, if you order a photo, I generally give permission to use them on personal sites.
However, most people just want the photo to share online. Whether it's facebook or emailing to friends or on a web album. And, your right, having my logo across the photo doesn't stop them.
If I do decide to do any more shows and your daughter is showing, please come and let me know your there. I'll be sure not to take any photos of her. I assume when people see my camera pointing at their child and that I will be posting them online. If it was my child, and I had a problem with it, I would be definitley speaking with them at some point.

---

Anna not sure if you are riverbend- but if so- you will see that i did in fact order and pay for photos at every event while I am on site.

posted July 02, 2008 11:05 AM            

And on top of that you still use this premise when your child attends a show so you can get a free picture out of it?

all I can say is wow.

Whether or not you purchased photos (which I somehow don't believe right now) it is still illegal to take photos - clearly copyright marked - off someones site and post them elsewhere on the internet - whether you have financially gained from it or not.

On that note I think I will withdraw from this thread for a while before I say something against board rules - if I already haven't.

posted July 02, 2008 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amc2:
Anna not sure if you are riverbend- but if so- you will see that i did in fact order and pay for photos at every event while I am on site.

---

posted July 02, 2008 03:13 PM            

And frankly why any photographer should have to go through this is beyond me but then again people have different morals/ethics etc.

Michelle you are correct. You do own the photo as soon as it's taken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first issue. Giving permission to take photographs of people at a public event has nothing to do with copyrights. Permission is not required to take photos of people and places and things that are in public.

She in NO way owns the copyrights to photographs taken by someone else whether or not she has "given permission" to have the photographer take photos of her children. These are unrelated topics. If she was in her private home and a photographer came to the door wanting to photograph her children, she could deny that request. At a public event, she does not have control over people with cameras. In her own home she does.

At the moment the photo is taken, the photographer who clicked the shutter owns the copyrights to that photo. There are exceptions. IF the photographer is an employee and taking the photographs as part of his job description, then photographs taken as a part of normal work are owned by your employer (in most cases). (Also, In Canada, if the photographer is hired by someone to take portraits or do photography, the person hiring will own the copyrights unless the photographer has other arrangements/ written agreements with the person who has hired them - This IS DIFFERENT than US law) Also, if the photographer signs a WORK FOR HIRE agreement then the person who hired him with this agreement in force owns the copyrights (US law).

In most cases the photographer at a show is NOT the employee of the show AND most equine photographers do NOT sign WORK FOR HIRE agreements for show photography. So in all likelyhood the photographer at the show owns all the copyrights to any photographs taken during that show. (OOPS--this would apply to US law. But, in Canada if someone HIRES a photographer, they own the copyrights unless the photographer has to appropriate paper work to change that. BUT, still with a horse show it is likely that appropriate paperwork is in place so that the photographer retains their copyrights...AND.... it is also likely that the photographer is there shooting on spec (hoping the participants will purchase photos) rather than being "hired" and making all their money from show management).

Yes, the person that you mention is infringing on the copyrights of the photographer by stealing the photos from the photographer's proofing site to display on her own web site without permission. The photographer is NOT required to show a copyright on the photo in order to retain copyrights to that photo (although it is wise to add copyright signatures on anything posted on the internet. And to add Meta data in the photographs hidden information files which state the copyright ownership and contact information of the photographer)

You are also welcome to post this entire post to your other forum if you wish (this is called permission to use as this post is also copyrighted).

I think that I covered all the above questions.

P.S. If a photographer finds their photos stolen on someone else's web site, it is fully withing their rights to contact the ISP (Internet service provider) which is hosting that site and ask that it be shut down or the photos removed. This happens FREQUENTLY on Face book and other personal sharing web sites, Flicker and others.

(Canada laws are somewhat different in some areas. I have edited the above to reflect my understanding of the differences. However, I am not an attorney. But, just for clarification, permission to take photos at a public event has NOTHING to do with who owns the copyrights to the photographs which are taken - It may limit the ways in which those photographs can be used)

[This message has been edited by Serafina (edited July 02, 2008).]

posted July 02, 2008 03:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suesan:
You have to sign a release in schools so that they can publish photographs which might have your child in them.

I think it's getting to be pretty onerous, and it's going to affect the arts. There's a very good talk on Ted Talks by an English education expert, on how copyright laws are affecting the ability of young people to re-interpret their culture.

Would Renoir, or Degas be able now to go to a park and paint people having a picnic, or would that be a violation of privacy? Degas did paint horses at the track.

Will any artist now be able to go to a park and draw or paint the people in it, without being sued?

Just as a possibility, I could take a group of photographs of horses jumping, and take them apart or re-tint them, or change them in some way that would make a statement about horses used in sport -- which would be a deeper message than just a photograph. However, I'd probably be sued, or someone would complain; so there goes one more possibility of saying something meaningful to the world about the topic.

Not that I don't sympathize with the photographers who are trying to make a living with photography, but I really wonder how much control you can expect to exert into the future.

What about newspaper photographs? I know you can go to the Calgary Herald and buy original photos from Spruce or the Stampede, but using them out of the paper, I don't know.

I went through a checkstop once, after a wedding and I was designated driver; so no liquor at all; but my power window didn't work. I was driving a Camaro, and had to open the door, 2-door of course, to speak to the policeman. I didn't take the breathalyzer because I'd had nothing to drink . . . but the next morning I think 8 people phoned me because they recognized me, and assumed I'd had to take the test. I called the paper, kind of ticked off, and was told that there was nothing I could do -- I was part of the public domain.

---

My father was recently involved in discussions to write a follow up to a history of the Canadian Opera Company he wrote a decade ago. The book did well, made money and the publisher thought, given the time frame and the changes recently at the COC it was time for a companion piece.

After examination my father and the publisher decided it was simply not worth it. In order to do it legally they would have had to get a signed release from EVERY person (or their estate) in EVERY photograph, including apprentices, stage hands, people just standing around . . . every single person. AND they would have had to pay huge fees to every photographer of every photograph.

An immense amount of fiddly work and no chance of profit.

posted July 02, 2008 04:02 PM            

See if people will use them on their websites then!

posted July 02, 2008 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suesan:
You have to sign a release in schools so that they can publish photographs which might have your child in them. School boards require this to protect themselves because child molesters tend to cruise school web sites and because non-custodial parents may use these pictures to track down their children. It doesn't really have anything to do with the copyright or intellectual property issue.

I think it's getting to be pretty onerous, and it's going to affect the arts. There's a very good talk on Ted Talks by an English education expert, on how copyright laws are affecting the ability of young people to re-interpret their culture. I am sure the expert may have had some interesting points, but most educational experts agree that the Internet has made the concept of intellectual property even harder for students to grasp and has made plagiarism excruciatingly difficult to detect. As a school librarian these suspected instances of plagiarism land on my desk to hunt down. It gets tougher all the time. I have even had adult students of my own plagiarize. One just copied and pasted direct from two Internet sites; she didn't even bother to change the font.

I feel this whole thread is an excellent demonstration of how the concept of intellectual property is misunderstood.

Would Renoir, or Degas be able now to go to a park and paint people having a picnic, or would that be a violation of privacy? Degas did paint horses at the track.

Will any artist now be able to go to a park and draw or paint the people in it, without being sued? Like the permission to take pictures of school children this does not relate to the original issue -- copyright.

Just as a possibility, I could take a group of photographs of horses jumping, and take them apart or re-tint them, or change them in some way that would make a statement about horses used in sport -- which would be a deeper message than just a photograph. However, I'd probably be sued, or someone would complain; so there goes one more possibility of saying something meaningful to the world about the topic. This type of artistic work has been been legitimate for years. However, recognition is (or should be) given to the original creator. An example from music would be: "Variations on a Theme by Joseph Haydn" which was composed by Brahms (except that it turns out Haydn probably didn't write the original piece at all. But it shows that even in the 1870's artists were aware of the importance of giving credit to other artists.)

Not that I don't sympathize with the photographers who are trying to make a living with photography, but I really wonder how much control you can expect to exert into the future. I think a photographer should be able to expect the same amount of control that an author or composer would.

What about newspaper photographs? I know you can go to the Calgary Herald and buy original photos from Spruce or the Stampede, but using them out of the paper, I don't know. Unless the photographer is a freelancer, the newspaper holds the rights but you can cut a picture out of the paper and use it for a personal scrapbook, for example. I am sure all across North America there are tons of scrapbooks filled with pictures and clippings of Barbaro in horse crazed girls' bedrooms.

You can purchase a photograph from the newspaper it is for personal use for example sending the picture to friends or relatives. But you would have to purchase an individual picture for each copy you wanted to use. And if you want to add that photo to your webpage or include it in a book you are writing you have to get permission.

When a student is quoting from a newspaper or journal or using a photo from such sources, the use should be properly cited in a bibliography.

I went through a checkstop once, after a wedding and I was designated driver; so no liquor at all; but my power window didn't work. I was driving a Camaro, and had to open the door, 2-door of course, to speak to the policeman. I didn't take the breathalyzer because I'd had nothing to drink . . . but the next morning I think 8 people phoned me because they recognized me, and assumed I'd had to take the test. I called the paper, kind of ticked off, and was told that there was nothing I could do -- I was part of the public domain.

---

That is unfortunate, but it happens. Every day people who are charged but not yet convicted have their names published in papers. They have no guarantee that if they are cleared of the charge that their acquittals will appear in the paper.

And while it sounds like it was horibly embarassing, it also doesn't have anything to do with copyright

posted July 02, 2008 10:25 PM            

Very interesting.

posted July 03, 2008 01:20 AM            

if i purchased the photographs, on a cd for $85, (because i wanted about 10 pictures and couldn't afford the $300 that'd cost me, -i'm on minimum wage!).
i have the right to print off copies of these do i not?
and i have the posted on my face book, just these ten prints, NOTHING, copyrighted, as i do feel thats morally wrong. but i figured since i had paid for the pictures, i could post them for my friends too see.
what about emailing?
i have friends back in england who love to see how my guys doing, since he was rescued by them. does this mean LEGALLY i cannot post them on my website for them to see, or email them?
facebooks easier because they're on dialup still
because if so, thats a little bit unfair.
now, if i was to sell it to a magazine, the obviously i would reference them to the photographer, as i don't have permission to sell, but to post on the internet?
your not telling me i have to pay an extra $100 to put my pictures on facebook.

because, although i respect photographers, and their hardwork, and have ALWAYS bought prints/photo's before displaying them, i think it is ridiculous to ask me to pay more because i want to show my friends.

posted July 03, 2008 01:30 AM            

I'm not thinking of plagiarism issues at all, actually thinking about what the educator I mentioned had to say about the use of YouTube videos. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

and it is somewhat off topic, but very interesting to listen to. How schools destroy creativity.

Waiting to see photos from this weekend's Gold Level dressage show in Calgary - at Anderson's. Briarwood Photography took the photos, we didn't see anything at the show, but they will be up on her site at the end of this week.

Daughter rode the 6 year old Tbred, scheduled for Friday/Saturday in Training level, but he got off the trailer Friday wired and full of coiled springs, and horrified. Daughter decided to spray him with bug spray while I was holding him, and he cowkicked her in the thigh. She was completely rattled, and really upset - so scratched for the day, and had the trainer ride him in the warmup ring for an hour, which was very kind of her considering she was organizing the show.

Once the saddle went on, he relaxed visibly - as if he realized that everything would be business as usual.

She rode him on Saturday, but because of the sore thigh and the fact that her nerves were shot, rearranged things to ride a walk/trot class. I thought she'd never actually get on him, and I went home for a nap. But - she did it, and aside from a team of four warmbloods and a wagon going right by her ring -- it went well. He was getting wound up so she tensed up -- but she got a 55 and a 62.

Waiting for the photos. Don't intend to take anything we won't use. I hope there are some - she was the last class on Saturday.

I scribed for the first time - interesting.

posted July 03, 2008 01:43 AM            

1. CD which I have yet to receive
2. strict rules that I don't see them on sites where they can be removed and used. Is Flickr not one of these sites?
3. None of my horses photo's taken by you get sold.

I have the emails we sent back and forth.

So where does this fall in your quest for photographers rights? What about my rights and my kindness in allowing you to photograph my expensive Friesians with conditions that have not been met?

Photography seems like owning horses.... maybe you better go back to school so you can get a real job and take photo's as a hobby!

posted July 03, 2008 07:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by thirdtimelucky:
sorry if this has been covered just wanted to make it crystal clear.

if i purchased the photographs, on a cd for $85, (because i wanted about 10 pictures and couldn't afford the $300 that'd cost me, -i'm on minimum wage!).
i have the right to print off copies of these do i not?

---

My answer..."it depends". What usage rights did you purchase with the CD of images? I sell low resolution or high resolution .jpegs. One allows for printing, one doesn't.

I posted on another thread before about this. Before you purchase photos or hire a photographer, ask these questions. Ask to see the contract. Ask as many questions as you can to make sure that you understand what it is you're buying, and what usage rights you get with those.

I'd rather spend my time before the sale/shoot educating you on what my services include, instead of dealing with an upset customer who didn't understand what they were purchasing after the fact....most photographers would.

posted July 03, 2008 08:00 AM            

AMC- you seem to have an inclination about canadian law- but same with above, I really do not think people should be representing their knowledge of legal matters when they dont have the legal education or capabilities.

With the dawn of the internet- it muggies the waters even more surrounding copyright laws and personal gain.

Please do yourselves a favour- do not post legal information unless you can back your name up with an LLB, or you can provide a direct link to E-Laws Canada/Ontario with the specific statute/or appropriate case law.

And for those that are angry that their photograph is being used without persmission- hire a lawyer or get out of the business, because I can tell you people will always find ways to lift photographs.

posted July 03, 2008 08:07 AM            

I have emailed you several times with no response. I have even asked Illona what's up and why I haven't had a reply from you (if she had heard from you).

I have your emails to me from December 23rd wherein you clearly state you have no problem with me using the pictures I take on my website. I was not allowed to sell them and I was to send you a CD. I have not done nor do I intend to sell the pictures.

It is a bit unfair of you to post false information about me on this board when I have proof to the contrary. I really don't appreciate it.

On that note, I will forward your emails to you today so that you have a record of what was said. Please do me a favour and send me your address so that I can infact send a CD which I have emailed about at least 3 times since February. I know you were away until the end of March and I have emailed again since then - with no reply. I had been hoping to come back out in the spring/summer but since I never heard back after numerous tries I figured you were busy.

The information with regard to copyright infringement etc that I posted was given by a professional photographer who looked at both US and Canadian law.

posted July 03, 2008 09:06 AM            

Please don't argue about what I asked of you with the photo's. I gave kind permission for you to come to my farm, and take pictures of my horses. I am so concerned with whom takes their photo's I always say the same thing. Not only did I say it in email I said it personally while you were at my farm.
Trust me you are not the first or the last to stop in and take photo's. The exact same thing is said every time.
Someone stops by weekly if not daily to either look at the Stallion out front or ask to take his photo.

I clearly stated:

1. A CD of the photos for my use.
2. They don't get posted where they can be taken by the public (I am sure you are wondering why Ilona has them on Flickr? She asked)
3. They don't get sold.

edited to add

I emailed you before we left for Florida when you told me you had a disc for me! I still haven't seen it.
My website is in my signature on each and every email I send out. You do have my address.

posted July 03, 2008 09:35 AM            

Here is a copy of a portion of your email to me. I am not posting the rest as it it pertains to someone else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All I ask is I get a disc of the photo's you take and you don't sell them. I don't mind your using them on your web site.

Thanks for your interest.

SP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I asked you about putting them on my website long before I ever came out to your farm.

I first posted them on flickr after I took the pictures and sent you the link so you could see how they turned out and you never said a word about it.

Yet here you are jumping into this thread and now it's an issue? I have it set to no downloads etc. Why has it taken until now for you to speak up and go against what you told me in email originally?

I specifically asked if I could use them on my website. This is it until I put one together as I don't have the funds right now to do so.

You even commented on the flickr site and said they were lovely. I tried to contact you after that and have not to this day heard a word.

Again - I really don't appreciate being lied about on a public board.

I will look for your address and send you a cd with a selection of photos.

I have a real job and work very hard. Not sure what happened or why you are attacking me like this.

posted July 03, 2008 09:57 AM            

Thanks

posted July 03, 2008 11:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by *NvMe*:
AMC- you seem to have an inclination about canadian law- but same with above, I really do not think people should be representing their knowledge of legal matters when they dont have the legal education or capabilities.
[This message has been edited by *NvMe* (edited July 03, 2008).]

---

NvMe-
nothing to do with the initial post- but in fairness you no nothing about my educational background, or what I do for a living. (I am NOT a lawyer).

I guess if we all wanted we can sit around around and start to debate how the copyright act in Canada needs to be change to better align with the rest of the world in its protection of media shifting and fair use/fair dealing (CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada)
Does the fact that I can do the requisite quoting increase the merit or value of my OPINION- NO.

Last I looked this thread, and in fact this medium- is about people who have similar interests sharing OPINIONS, which by their very definition cannot be right or wrong- simply "personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty" (source princeton.edu just in case I would be accused of Plagurisim.......

one final thought......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

posted July 03, 2008 12:54 PM            

Any further personal comments on this thread will cause it to be shut down AND deleted.

That being said. I agree with others who have said using the photos is wrong. It is illegal for sure, but it is also very unethical. HOWEVER, I also do not believe that photographers should be able to use photos of my animal without my permission. Even for their own advertising.

If asked, I would have no problem allowing the use of them for advertising at no charge but I hate coming across them as a surprise.

Yes, the photographer puts a lot into his business, but I put a lot into my horse and it isn't as though they don't have the contact information for me.

In some cases, a horse's image can't be used by certain businesses because he is already a model for one and it could create a conflict of interest. Ultimately, the image is of a horse owned by an individual and this should be taken into account prior to using it as advertising or being sold as a stock photograph.

posted July 03, 2008 01:24 PM            

It has been a while (10+ years?) since I purchased photos and some of them have started to fade or gotten ratted on the edges (in part my fault because I had them tacked up on fridges and bulletin boards). A few years ago I decided to scan a few of them (in efforts of preservation, as I can't find the original photographer). Can I print these again myself? Or post them (seeing as they were pretty much pre-digital) on facebook? With credits as due of course?

As for the discussion about children... I would think just as MORALLY I wouldn't post pictures without either permission, purchase or in this particular case credit from a photographer, I would think a photographer would NOT MORALLY post photos of your horse, child or whatever on their website without your permission. Even if they legally own them. Wouldn't that just be polite to ask? (or am I totally naive?)

Maybe a nice compromise would be for the photographer to allow the subject "digital posting" rights for the subject in exchange for letting the photographer post the picture in question on their site?

Even if it is all well and legal for a photographer (who I know works hard for their money and does create "art") to take and own the pictures, maybe them posting photos on the internet crosses a boundary?

Again, it would be a nice world if we all paid what was owed for a given service. And if we could be gracious in sharing when both parties would benefit.

posted July 03, 2008 02:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ride on:
Perhaps it is time for the photography industry to charge $50 up front just to give a horse show competitor the privilege of having pictures taken. The amount to be deducted from any pictures purchased.

---

This issue of photography sure gets a lot of people talking! I may have missed some replies similar to this, but what a great approach to deter competitors from stealing images off of proofs.

I don't see anything wrong with a $20 "service charge" if I want someone to take a picture of me at a show. In conjunction with having proofs be only available on the showgrounds (perhaps displayed on a laptop computer), more photographers may be able to make a living doing what they love.

Besides, if the original $20 can be put towards the purchase of prints, people may be willing to fork out more for *additional* prints. Heck, I'd already counted on spending $20 just to ensure that the photog would shoot us, and after applying that amount towards a print, an additional $20 for a second or third print doesn't seem so bad.

People may even end up feeling like they are getting a "deal" for that first print, in that they've already resigned themselves to paying for it via a "service charge".

As soon as you have people illegally reproducing your work, it's time to take steps to try and deter that from happening. Unfortunately, it means that the process of viewing or purchasing horse show photographs, for instance, becomes less convenient (who has enough time in their busy show-day schedule to stop-by the photographer's booth to check out their shots?).

posted July 03, 2008 05:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amc2:
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

---

Well since this is all about intellectual property the basic high school MLA citation for the above scene would be:

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Dir. Terry Gilliam. Perf. Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin . Film. Python (Monty) Pictures, 1975.

Actually it would be more complicated than that, since it was quoted by amc2 and that should be included in the attribution

(Suesan, if you have time, please email me about the schools killing creativity piece.)

posted July 03, 2008 06:17 PM            

I guess if we all wanted we can sit around around and start to debate how the copyright act in Canada needs to be change to better align with the rest of the world in its protection of media shifting and fair use/fair dealing (CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada)
Does the fact that I can do the requisite quoting increase the merit or value of my OPINION- NO.

Last I looked this thread, and in fact this medium- is about people who have similar interests sharing OPINIONS, which by their very definition cannot be right or wrong- simply "personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty" (source princeton.edu just in case I would be accused of Plagurisim......."

AMC

I did not suggest that you did or did not have the requisite legal knowledge nor did I suggest that you should not state your opinions. However, stating the current state of copyright law in Canada is not an opinion, but rather a statement of fact. It would be well advised for any person who is making reprentations of whether something is legal or not to ensure the veracity and correctness of the information. Obviously this is not a requirement, however it would be unfortunate if the numerous forum readers thought they could now reproduce work or any substantial part in any material form all because of a post. I dont think its asking much for a poster to ensure that they are posting accurate information, but then again people like ripping off photographers.

Back to the original topic now

[This message has been edited by *NvMe* (edited July 03, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by *NvMe* (edited July 03, 2008).]

posted July 03, 2008 07:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GuelphGurl:

I don't see anything wrong with a $20 "service charge" if I want someone to take a picture of me at a show. In conjunction with having proofs be only available on the showgrounds (perhaps displayed on a laptop computer), more photographers may be able to make a living doing what they love.

---

I think this is a great idea. I would cheerfully pay a "sitting" fee before the show started, give my numbers and divisions. That way the photographer could focus on getting lots of nice shots of those of us who want the pictures, would love to see lots of proofs and order pictures. The proofs could be emailed to me or something similar so I could chose from them. The photographer would have some income earlier to help pay for show costs.

posted July 03, 2008 08:47 PM            

The email delivery failed, so here's the site; it's quite interesting:

All the Ted Talks are.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we're educating our children. He champions a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence.
Why you should listen to him:

Why don't we get the best out of people? Sir Ken Robinson argues that it's because we've been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers. Students with restless minds and bodies -- far from being cultivated for their energy and curiosity -- are ignored or even stigmatized, with terrible consequences. "We are educating people out of their creativity," Robinson says. It's a message with deep resonance. Robinson's TEDTalk has been distributed widely around the Web since its release in June 2006. The most popular words framing blog posts on his talk? "Everyone should watch this."

A visionary cultural leader, Sir Ken led the British government's 1998 advisory committee on creative and cultural education, a massive inquiry into the significance of creativity in the educational system and the economy, and was knighted in 2003 for his achievements.

* * * *

As for discussing legal points re photography on this site, I *do not* agree that you have to be a lawyer to do so. That means then, that you believe one has to have a degree in law before one can discuss law, become interested in law, go to listen to legal speakers, have the curiosity to find out about the law and so on. We're not bound by such strictures in this society, and never should be. We are free to discuss; but not to hang out a shingle saying we're a lawyer if we're not.

posted July 03, 2008 10:21 PM            

As for discussing legal points re photography on this site, I *do not* agree that you have to be a lawyer to do so. That means then, that you believe one has to have a degree in law before one can discuss law, become interested in law, go to listen to legal speakers, have the curiosity to find out about the law and so on. We're not bound by such strictures in this society, and never should be. We are free to discuss; but not to hang out a shingle saying we're a lawyer if we're not. "

Discussing legal issues, or whatnot is not what im getting at here susan. Misreprentations of what is legal/illegal is my issue when many people are just plain ignorant or dont know any better. Go research it, and learn it but dont come on here stating facts that are not necessairly true.

posted July 03, 2008 10:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suesan:
P/Novice, I'm sending you the site now.

The email delivery failed, so here's the site)

---

That's because I gave you the wrong email

It should be:

perpetual_novice@yahoo.ca

posted July 03, 2008 10:38 PM            

Sorry mods but I have been following a photo post and ironically it seems there is only one injured party "the photographer"
The statement I made to "Serafina" is not a personal dispute merely a fact.

A photographer asked to come to my place of residence and photograph my Friesians and I agreed to it with conditions.
None of the conditions have been met so where does this situation fall into all of the legalities of photo stealing?

posted July 03, 2008 11:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Draygonfyne:
My answer..."it depends". What usage rights did you purchase with the CD of images? I sell low resolution or high resolution .jpegs. One allows for printing, one doesn't.

I posted on another thread before about this. Before you purchase photos or hire a photographer, ask these questions. Ask to see the contract. Ask as many questions as you can to make sure that you understand what it is you're buying, and what usage rights you get with those.

I'd rather spend my time before the sale/shoot educating you on what my services include, instead of dealing with an upset customer who didn't understand what they were purchasing after the fact....most photographers would.

---

i bought the cd of ben radvanyi, he didn't really say a whole lot to me, but the pictures where of a high enough resolution to print (300ppi) i've done a couple photoshop courses lol . but i've never really thought about the fact that i may legally not be allowed to do that,

posted July 03, 2008 11:12 PM            

Thank you.