Copyright - Who Do You Think Owns The Rights To Photos

[Ridgesetter]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

What we believe may be applicable in a poll and what the law says are two different things. We have photographers on this list so I imagine they will give their professional advice.

Having worked in the petfood industry for many years, I organised photography of dogs for packaging, the website and various ad campaigns. I always gave the owners of the dogs a disc with a copy of their dog but with the express proviso that no image could be reproduced unless they advised that the photo came from the petfood company and the name of the photographer. All were agreeable and I've seen no breach.

As for the petfood company, they didn't own the images even though they paid and commissioned them. Images belong to the photographer and we took out a contract paying for the images and stating what we would use them for. Should we have used any image outside of the contract, we would have needed to negotiate and pay the photographer more money.

Here in Australia, we have several photographers at dog shows who take both sitting shots and candid shots. If you purchase any of the pics, and if you delete the photographers name when reproducing the image, you're in trouble. One of the photographers in particular has taken action against dog exhibitors who reproduced the purchased images without acknowledging the photographer and in an arena that the photographer was not happy with.

The photographers often take shots of dogs at shows or home sittings, and shots that the dog owner doesn't purchase often are reproduced in our canine journals or offered for sale at pet expos. So you can lose control of images of your dogs.

Having done Whippet breed lectures for aspiring judges, and using Powerpoint presentation, I have always written and sought permission if I wanted to include an image of a dog I didn't own. HOWEVER, my understanding of the law is that you don't need to seek permission if the image is being used for educative purposes.

Anyone can take a picture of your dog anywhere and use it how they wish as they own the picture. An RR person I know found a head shot of one of her dogs on mugs for sale. She followed it up and couldn't do a thing as she didn't own the image.

The Saluki Club in Victoria produce a wonderful ongoing book of champions which is a pedigree reference and image of the dog. If you as the owner don't supply a picture, someone else can and will!

Anyway, that's my take on the situation. Doesn't resolve an issue of a loaned camera and someone elses dog in another persons backyard. If I did vote, I would say whoever took the picture, owns the image.

But we all need to remember some dogs photograph really well and other dogs, although gorgeous in the flesh, their beauty is never captured in an image. Other dogs that are so so, and look great in the image. Also, in this day and age, having worked with professionals for work and seen how with various programs such as Photoshop they enrich colour, change the shape of an eye, cut a tail from one shot and add to another, shorten, lengthen, whatever, I never trust an image. If I'm truly interested in a dog, I'll ask for a video or go and see the dog in the flesh.

Bottom line, don't get hung up on images. Changing of information is a different can of worms, but images can be updated easily. Something is always better than nothing and now we have lost a great resource.

Sorry to ramble on. I'll blame the lovely wine I'm sipping.

 

[Tesa]

What we believe may be applicable in a poll and what the law says are two different things. This was the reason behind the poll. I have noticed a lot of people on TWA claiming copyright to photo's they posted could not possibliy have any right to.

Anyway, that's my take on the situation. Doesn't resolve an issue of a loaned camera and someone elses dog in another persons backyard. If I did vote, I would say whoever took the picture, owns the image.

just to make my self clear, there is NO issue with this particular photo, I only used it as an example of what could happen, and to gauge peoples understanding of the law

Sorry to ramble on. I'll blame the lovely wine I'm sipping.

Great reply Toni, enjoy your glass :cheers:

 

[bluesky]

I think a lot depends on which country you are in. Different laws to different countries and all that. Be carefull not to get confused :thumbsup:

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/...raphy_copyright

Ken

 

[Garry Comber]

Does it really matter as long as the photographs are not used for publicity advertising or personal gain?

I thought photographs were made for sharing otherwise there is not much point in taking them.

If people had not have shared them in the first place others couldn’t have got hold of them.

I am sad TWA has gone over what is to me a trivial matter (who owns the picture), which in the scheme of things has ended a very useful interesting and informative website.

I’m sorry if my view upsets some people, but sharing feels nicer than possession to me.

 

[wild whippies]

Agree with Ken it definately depends on where you are as the law varies between countries.

The celebs photos are taken in the public domain and as such they have no rights, however if for example a celeb's photos were potrayed / manipulated to look derogatory and the celeb had a genuine causative loss resulting from the derogatory photos, then they could have a very good case for libel.

 

[wild whippies]

Does it really matter as long as the photographs are not used for publicity advertising or personal gain?I thought photographs were made for sharing otherwise there is not much point in taking them.

If people had not have shared them in the first place others couldn’t have got hold of them.

I am sad TWA has gone over what is to me a trivial matter (who owns the picture), which in the scheme of things has ended a very useful interesting and informative website.

I’m sorry if my view upsets some people, but sharing feels nicer than possession to me.

It's not that clear cut though really. I used to show dogs eons ago and I know that some traits can be disguised by the selectful positioning and movement of both dog and handler, hell even a lead can compensate for poor ear carriage. The other thing is dogs don't go round posing for ever photo shot so even they can give a poor misrepresentation, just like we all do for our passport photos! :lol:

The dilemma though is when someone uploads a photo of your dog (either innocently or maybe malicously) where you personally feel the photo is either derogatory or a poor misrepresentation of your dog or even (heaven forebid) the photo is actually an accurate image of your dogs' dodgy ear carriage / rocking horse back/ over-angulated hocks/ yadayadayada. Then of course your going to want the photo out of the public domain immediately.

 

[Seraphina]

photo is either derogatory or a poor misrepresentation of your dog or even (heaven forebid) the photo is actually an accurate image of your dogs' dodgy ear carriage / rocking horse back/ over-angulated hocks/ yadayadayada. Then of course your going to want the photo out of the public domain immediately.

Well, if you found a photo like that on TWA you were able to zap it out immediately, and replace it with something that you are happy with.

 

[BeeJay]

photo is either derogatory or a poor misrepresentation of your dog or even (heaven forebid) the photo is actually an accurate image of your dogs' dodgy ear carriage / rocking horse back/ over-angulated hocks/ yadayadayada. Then of course your going to want the photo out of the public domain immediately.

Well, if you found a photo like that on TWA you were able to zap it out immediately, and replace it with something that you are happy with.

Yes we could all do that because it was open to everyone which was the same for photo copyright I changed my photos into my own name because I simply thought that whoever had taken them from biennials didn't know who took 'em and so couldn't put my name to them themselves.

 

[wild whippies]

If that's the case, then why did Karin choose to axe the site rather than remove the controversial photos?

Ok I understand if someone's scanned a photo of a dog and added it to the site this would have infringed copyright of both the photographer and the whippet biennial, however surely the photographers concerned with supplying photos for the whippet biennials wouldn't really hold an objection with a site that is meerly keeping a historical record of the breed or is it the publishers of the biennial?

Don't get me wrong I get peeved plenty of times seeing my photos cropping up here and there, I've launched grievances with individuals who have used photos for stud promotions and puppy sales without asking my permission first and in other cases where photos have been used and manipulated in such a manner that I think it makes my work look poor quality but I wouldn't for a moment launch a grievance with someone who is promoting the breed as a whole and providing every whippet owner in the world the opportunity to see their dogs lineage.

The only cause for argument from a photographers point of view I could see is if they provided photos for the whippet biennials were paid for their services or that the uploaded photos are of such an inferior quality, the photographer felt it reflected on their skills as a photographer, but then they could always have offered a better quality image?

The only other individuals I could see being opposed would be the publishers of the biennial but I have to say I do have issues with anyone who threatens to sue people for reproducing material that they have already profiteered from, unless of course the infringer is using such material to profit themselves. (e.g. piracy)

If this is the dispute, couldn't some sort of harmony be made with TWA? For example maybe an advert for the biennial on the site?

It's not like TWA charge to view their site and I know it will be extremely expensive to run but also I think a fair few might be cutting off their noses to spite their faces purely for the fact that they may well have been approached for studs or puppies because of the site's existance.

It should be noted that copyright, apparently varies from country to country :-

Does Karin visit K9? I'd very much like to talk to her.

 

[BeeJay]

I suppose that Karen could have simply removed the photo display function if it's just about the photos. AND what a shame that would have been IMO.

I think that Karen simply had enough of the bitchin Jaquie. I would think that it's been a lot of work for her, as you say v expensive and she maybe got worn down by a few people moaning and threatening lawsuits constantly at her. Would a court of law actually fine someone who isn't making any money for allowing reproductions of photos that were already in the public domain? Could an owner prove loss of earnings because their stud dog or brood bitch had a bad photo being shown somewhere on the internet?

 

[turb065]

Show us the pics LOL

 

[wild whippies]

Would a court of law actually fine someone who isn't making any money for allowing reproductions of photos that were already in the public domain? Could an owner prove loss of earnings because their stud dog or brood bitch had a bad photo being shown somewhere on the internet?

Well seeing as though it wasn't her that uploaded the images then the only liability I can see on her part would be that she didn't check who owned the copyright on the photos. Hence a tick box type disclaimer to uploads should wash her hands of any incrimination. If someone seriously persued the matter, Karen could meerly provide details of who submitted the photos and remove those particular ones from the site, demonstrating her co-operation with the court and leaving the prosecution to peruse a breach of copyright with the individual who reproduced the material in the first place.

I think a dog owner would be on dodgy ground trying to proove loss of earnings, especially as one could simply rebutt such suggestions by presenting individuals who have shown an interest in a particular dog following seeing it on the website.

I think someone would be bonkers to try and persue such a matter in a UK court let alone in another country where their rulings on copyright may be entirely different to the UK's. If I was Karen, I'd keep the site running and simply remove the owners dog's from the database and let them mull over that.

 

[bluesky]

Would a court of law actually fine someone who isn't making any money for allowing reproductions of photos that were already in the public domain? quote]
I think it would have to be the copyright owner who took the person to court and since they broke the law then i suspect the court would favour the copyright owner, whether or not they are making money from the photo's.

It would be up to the copyright owner as to whether it was financially viable to do so :thumbsup:

 

[Sarsanet]

Would a court of law actually fine someone who isn't making any money for allowing reproductions of photos that were already in the public domain? Could an owner prove loss of earnings because their stud dog or brood bitch had a bad photo being shown somewhere on the internet?

Well seeing as though it wasn't her that uploaded the images then the only liability I can see on her part would be that she didn't check who owned the copyright on the photos. Hence a tick box type disclaimer to uploads should wash her hands of any incrimination. If someone seriously persued the matter, Karen could meerly provide details of who submitted the photos and remove those particular ones from the site, demonstrating her co-operation with the court and leaving the prosecution to peruse a breach of copyright with the individual who reproduced the material in the first place.

I think a dog owner would be on dodgy ground trying to proove loss of earnings, especially as one could simply rebutt such suggestions by presenting individuals who have shown an interest in a particular dog following seeing it on the website.

I think someone would be bonkers to try and persue such a matter in a UK court let alone in another country where their rulings on copyright may be entirely different to the UK's. If I was Karen, I'd keep the site running and simply remove the owners dog's from the database and let them mull over that.

Every time a new Biennial is issued, I browse through it & am staggered by the terrible photos many people submit of their dogs. They, themselves submit a photo & pay a considerable sum to put their dog's image into the public domain & have the whole whippet world gaze, for ever, at shocking photos of their dogs. Ears are wrong, many are stacked incorrectly & they do their dog a much greater harm in the wider scheme of things than someone else posting a better photo of their dog on TWA.

In this issue I had a professional photographer take the shots. I explained to him what the photo was for & he gave me verbal permission to use it in any publication providing I attributed it to him which I did. But there was no written agreement, if push came to shove neither of us could prove anything was mutually agreed. It was a matter of him trusting me, a complete stranger, to do the right thing by him which I did. I doubt he'll ever see the Biennial ad. unles I take it along to a show to show him which I might.

Once a photo of your dog is in the public domain for all to see you'd have to have more money than sense to try to sue anyone for posting it on a site such as TWA which is, essentially, for education & general interest purposes for anyone who cares to log onto it.

 

[Seraphina]

Would a court of law actually fine someone who isn't making any money for allowing reproductions of photos that were already in the public domain?

I think it would have to be the copyright owner who took the person to court and since they broke the law then i suspect the court would favour the copyright owner, whether or not they are making money from the photo's.

It would be up to the copyright owner as to whether it was financially viable to do so :thumbsup:

Yes, but exactly what would have been achieved? I wonder what compensation could the copyright holder ask for? Cost of the photo? Actually, I suspect that all what they could ask would be that the particular photo be removed. All this copyright thing has gone totally mad.

When a person creates something they naturally want the recognition. And sometimes a person takes photo that newspapers or magazine may actually be willing to pay for, that is when copyright becomes important. However when a photographer takes a photo of a dog for somebody, they generally do not give a hoot where is it published. Of-course, if it is a professional photographer making living from dog photos they do care that the photo is attributed to them. The only way they would object to their photo on TWA would be if the photo was a bad example of their work. But then why did they allow it to leave their studio? Anyway, they could just remove it from TWA themselves, or ask the dog owner to replace it.

 

[Tesa]

All this copyright thing has gone totally mad.

It certainly has Lida

 

[Tesa]

Thanks you to everyone for their replies. It has made for interesting reading. :thumbsup:

Karen