Another photographer's logo on my photo

[kamari]

I did some photos for a lady a few months ago. I happened to stumble upon her website this morning only to see that one of the photos I took of her was touched up "so she claims" by another photographer and now his logo is on my photo. WTF!!!???

[wjmphoto]

Time to tell her to remove the photo or have the error corrected. You own the copyright, unless you sold it to her and you ned to explain that to her. You may also want to let the other photographer know that you are more than willing to take legal action against him as well.

[kamari]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

Time to tell her to remove the photo or have the error corrected. You own the copyright, unless you sold it to her and you ned to explain that to her. You may also want to let the other photographer know that you are more than willing to take legal action against him as well.

The photo was sold to her, but *sigh* there was no contract involved. I think this is a little bit of an "in your face" tactic. I did very basic touchups of the photos before I gave em to her but she wanted additional touch ups...but I wasn't gonna do them for free. By the time she decided to pay me I'd got caught up in too many other things to do it, and quite honestly, I lost interest in doing the touchups for her.

[wjmphoto]

In that case the law is in your court.

Have you registered the photos with the US copyright office? You should be doing this EVERY quarter. If not, do it immediately.

Then follow up with her and let her know that she need to remove the pic from her site, and then let the other shooter know that he is also violating US copyright laws. If you are a PPA member, you can also sick their attorneys on them as well.

The key, though is that the moment you hit the shutter, you own the copyright of every single shot that you take unless you have a contract and sell the copyright, not usage rights the actual copyright, to the customer. You have the power in this situation and need to take care of it immediately.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

In that case the law is in your court.

Have you registered the photos with the US copyright office? You should be doing this EVERY quarter. If not, do it immediately.

How do you go about doing this? do you have to register each and every photo you "distribute"? In some cases, that could get somewhat onerous--I was wondering if there's a better way.

[wjmphoto]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

How do you go about doing this? do you have to register each and every photo you "distribute"? In some cases, that could get somewhat onerous--I was wondering if there's a better way.

Start here:

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

You don't register just one photo at a time. Each quarter just burn a disc or discs or what you have shot and send them with your $45. The moment they are received they are registered.

One onther thing I will mention is that the other photographer in the OP's post was probably in violation of copyright law when they changed the photo. Under US copyright laws, only the copyright holder has the legal right to make changes to the work, unless express written permission is given.

[KdLaneJr]

Even if this is only an annoyance to you; Don't roll over. Follow up and use the law to make your point.

The other photographer should know better and the lady you photographed obviously needs a lesson in ethics.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

Start here:

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

You don't register just one photo at a time. Each quarter just burn a disc or discs or what you have shot and send them with your $45. The moment they are received they are registered.

One onther thing I will mention is that the other photographer in the OP's post was probably in violation of copyright law when they changed the photo. Under US copyright laws, only the copyright holder has the legal right to make changes to the work, unless express written permission is given.

So everything you have shot that might possibly be for consumption needs to be mailed with the form and $45? Man, if you shoot events or sports, that's a lot of DVDs!

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

One onther thing I will mention is that the other photographer in the OP's post was probably in violation of copyright law when they changed the photo. Under US copyright laws, only the copyright holder has the legal right to make changes to the work, unless express written permission is given.

That's the thing I was thinking. Even if the customer claims ignorance, the photographer should know better.

[Craig]

In the past I have been asked to manipulate other photographers photos. I have always refused unless the person could give me a written permission from the original photographer. They never have been able to provide it. That's just wrong. I would get in touch with the other photographer (if possible) and give them a verbal thrashing at minimum.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by Craig

In the past I have been asked to manipulate other photographers photos. I have always refused unless the person could give me a written permission from the original photographer. They never have been able to provide it. That's just wrong. I would get in touch with the other photographer (if possible) and give them a verbal thrashing at minimum.

Is it only considered unethical for another photographer to manipulate a photo?
I'm a graphich designer and manipulate photos all the time... it's pretty much expected.
As I understand it, once the photo is paid for by the client, they can give the photo to whomever they want to do whatever they want to it as long as how the photo is used in the end complies with whatever agreement the client has with the photographer.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by d2creative

Is it only considered unethical for another photographer to manipulate a photo?
I'm a graphich designer and manipulate photos all the time... it's pretty much expected.
As I understand it, once the photo is paid for by the client, they can give the photo to whomever they want to do whatever they want to it as long as how the photo is used in the end complies with whatever agreement the client has with the photographer.

My understanding is that unless that right was expressly granted by the photographer (which it sometimes is), if they want to take issue with someone else editing their photo, they can. There are a lot of folks better versed in this area than me, however; I'm sure some will respond.

[wjmphoto]

Originally Posted by d2creative

Is it only considered unethical for another photographer to manipulate a photo?
I'm a graphich designer and manipulate photos all the time... it's pretty much expected.
As I understand it, once the photo is paid for by the client, they can give the photo to whomever they want to do whatever they want to it as long as how the photo is used in the end complies with whatever agreement the client has with the photographer.

Your understanding is incorrect. Only the copyright owner has the right to manipulate a photo or grant that right to someone else. If you do not have written permission from the copyright holder and change their work, you are in violation of US copyright laws.

You may want to start here:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...se.html#change

and then do more research. The simple facts are that buying a photo does not grant anyone usage rights other than display and personal use. Buying a photo orthe negative and being given reproduction rights, unless specified in the grant of usage rights by the photographer, does not allow the client to change, manipulate or give that photo to a graphic artist to change. They simple have the right to get prints made in their original form, nothing else, and they do not have the right to let another photographer place their logo on it or make changes.

In the case of wedding photos, portraits and other non-commercial type photography the only rights that most photographer give are personal use and reproduction rights. Commercial clients may require agreements granting copyrights and that is the only case in which the client has the legal right to make changes to the finished images. Ultimately, it is not a question of ethics, it is a question of legality. Noone, be they a photographer, client or graphic artist has the legal right to change a photographers images without express written consent.

[d2creative]

Yeah, i can understand non-commercial work. But with commercial stuff, depending on the project, it's pretty much a given that the photo will be manipulated in some way whether its cropping, color adjustment, combining with another photo, etc. Annual report photos will typically get used as-is usually with just levels or color adjustments. Photos used in packaging design (my field) can get changed drastically especially if using stock. If using a photographer we will usually get it pretty close... then again, we might manipulate it to the point it looks like an illustration more than a photograph. It all depends. Example... the fruit on Minute Maid packaging... orange juice for instance. Those images are definitely more illustration than photograph and were originally taken by a food photographer here in Houston. I think the difference here though is that the photographer is not given any kind of credit anywhere. No credit line, no logos, etc and it's not expected. So it's not like the new or manipulated image is out there with their name on it.

[CaptainTom]

Folks go to college and then to law school and specialize in Trademark and Copyright Law, and they aren't always sure as to what is legal and what isn't.
It is fun to banter back and forth about what WE know about the law, but I don't take anything anyone says with too much credence. Sometimes it is easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission,,,, unless it is nuclear detonation or copyright infringement......