Photograph Copyright
 

Hey guys,

Since there seems to be quite a lot of you blokes that take an interest in photography I thought that this might be a good spot to ask a question.

Basically I work for a building company. We do a lot of high end architectural work that is once off and since I'm now (finally) putting together a decent website I'd like to use a few photos that the architects and (in some cases) magazines have published on the web. I have downloaded many of these over the years for my own records without an issue straight off the web. They have no copyright watermarks, details or dates on them etc other than simply a picture of the house/interior/landscaping. Are there any issues with me now putting these onto our own website?

As I see it there is no problem with me publishing shots of houses I have built but the issue I'm not aware of is the use of other peoples pictures.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,


Chris

Simply put, you can't do it. Well you can do it, but it would be rude. Copyright is automatic and there does not need to be any watermark or identification of the photographer. If you want to use other people's images you either pay for the rights to display them, or get permission to do so.

[QUOTE=TROLLEY;630126]Copyright is automatic and there does not need to be any watermark or identification of the photographer.[/QUOTE]

Most cameras now insert copyright into the exif data, this includes the name of the photographer (where it has been setup correctly).

You can't use them without the express written permission of the photographer. Regardless of whether it has a copyright symbol or watermark. The second the photographer takes the photo it is their intellectual property unless there was a legal agreement that stated otherwise.

[QUOTE=rubasu;630124]Hey guys,
I have downloaded many of these over the years for my own records without an issue straight off the web. They have no copyright watermarks, details or dates on them etc other than simply a picture of the house/interior/landscaping. Are there any issues with me now putting these onto our own website?[/QUOTE]

Like others have said, copyright is automatic, regardless of the use of watermarks or other identifying features. Image theft is a massive issue for the pro's at the moment and the penalties are actually quite high for publishing someone else's work without their consent. Quite simply...don't! If you want to use someone's work, expect to pay a royalty.

[QUOTE=rubasu;630124]As I see it there is no problem with me publishing shots of houses I have built but the issue I'm not aware of is the use of other peoples pictures. [/QUOTE]

This one is a little more complex; whilst you/your company built the property, it is not yours. Many commercial properties have legal agreements that state that any photographs taken [I]on[/I] their premises are owned exclusively by the owner. As such, you would be unable to post any of your own photographs on your website without prior consent from the them. You are probably familiar with Perth Motorplex's rules on photographic ownership; this is a similar case.

Try to get written consent from any owners you can (most will normally be more than happy) and this should safeguard you from any potential legal issues in the future. Failing that you can include a clause in your own contracts that tell the owner that any work done on their property could be photographed, and the photographic rights to these images belong to you/your company. If they sign it, you're sorted! You may find that your company already has a similar clause in it's contracts. :)

Hope this helps!

How would you stand if you were using photographs without permission in a non-profit situation?

Would the permission required part still stand?
I'm guessing that it would.

what if I crop the signature off the photo, edit it a little, then put my own 'Charlie89' signature on it?

[QUOTE=Soksta;630251]How would you stand if you were using photographs without permission in a non-profit situation?

Would the permission required part still stand?
I'm guessing that it would.[/QUOTE]

Yup afraid so. In Chris' instance whilst he would not be selling other people's photographs, the photo's could arguably increase the profitability of his company by attracting more clients.

[QUOTE=ImPreSiV;630252]what if I crop the signature off the photo, edit it a little, then put my own 'Charlie89' signature on it?[/QUOTE]

Why would you put Charlie89 as your watermark, your name is Kym and I doubt you were born in 89. There isn't an exact level of editing that avoids copyright, it's more to do with substantial similarity. You would be liable for prosecution if you made a decent sketch of a photograph even.

Disclaimer: This a guide only based on my readings of photographic copyright laws, please seek professional consultation before doing anything regarding above topics! :eek:

Then we get into the issues of fair use, Deriative works and collabrative works. Teams of lawyers cannot figure this shit out.

Ask yourself one question. Is your cheque book is bigger than the person whos work you may nor may not be putting online.

[QUOTE=98kellrs;630262]

Why would you put Charlie89 as your watermark, your name is Kym and I doubt you were born in 89. There isn't an exact level of editing that avoids copyright, it's more to do with substantial similarity. [B][I]You would be liable for prosecution if you made a decent sketch of a photograph even[/I][/B].

Disclaimer: This a guide only based on my readings of photographic copyright laws, please seek professional consultation before doing anything regarding above topics! :eek:[/QUOTE]

That can't be right?