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?

Here's the [URL=http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf]document[/URL] from the Australian Copyright Council on photographer's and copyright.

Copyright and Intilectual Property!
what you want is possible.

Be mindful where you find the photo and read the terms of use.
For example, all photos on Facebook (watermatked or not) are owned by Facebook not the photographer, they agreed to waiver ownership the moment they uploaded. Facebook sell our pictures to advertisers etc
Look into sites like Photobucket, the terms of use may say the images uploaded are for public use etc

You may think "whats the odds of being caught" but i would steer clear of IP and Copyright etc

Impresiv, your thinking of what we do at work, its not Copyright if we make 10% changes to the doc, ie; using another companies Procedure, change header, footer, formatting and reword some of it :)

yeah I was clearly taking the piss... you guys haven't been around the forum long enough maybe to recall...

[url]http://www.perth-wrx.com/vb/photography-media/43722-seeing-double.html[/url]

[QUOTE=PoktRokt;630287]Copyright and [B]Intilectual [/B]Property![/QUOTE]
lol

me english good!

Putting the law aside, it is a dog act to put shit up claiming it as your own if it isnt.

[QUOTE=ImPreSiV;630290]yeah I was clearly taking the piss... you guys haven't been around the forum long enough maybe to recall...

[URL]http://www.perth-wrx.com/vb/photography-media/43722-seeing-double.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Your reference was not lost on me! I found it hilarious. I hope this thread has gone into the pool room, if not, I nominate it!

Just read through the Seeing Double thread. Was a good read. Like many others here with a keen interest in photography I know Dave's work (through seeing it on Aus Photo Forum) and that shit makes me :mad:
I had no idea that he was associated with Perth-WRX though.

Thanks for the pointers guys! All the feedback is great. I realised it's a sticky thing unless you get everything signed off on like most things these days.

Ive seen many times where other builders post up anything they take shots off during construction (same as pool contractors/patio guys etc) but I guess the higher the end of the market the more risk of having issues over this there are. Particularly when there is an architect involved in the overall construction design who is contracted directly by the Owner.

Quite interesting point raised about me putting up my own shots of builds. I had logiced that I'd be ok putting up pictures that I had taken myself whilst in possession of the site/house until handed over but what you are saying also makes sense...

[QUOTE=rubasu;630600]Quite interesting point raised about me putting up my own shots of builds. I had logiced that I'd be ok putting up pictures that I had taken myself whilst in possession of the site/house until handed over but what you are saying also makes sense...[/QUOTE]

Would be easy to put into the contract that the builder has rights to take photos of the finished product as well as during construction and has rights to publish it.

Don't think most people would have an issue of their empty house being photographed.