News:

Welcome to the Renaissancefestival.com Forums!  Please post an introduction after signing up!

For an updated map of Ren Fests check out The Ren List at http://www.therenlist.com!

The Chat server is now running again, just select chat on the menu!

Main Menu

OK all you photographers out there................

Started by Mistress Charlotte, May 13, 2008, 03:25:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mistress Charlotte

Please explain to me why...............

is it that a photographer, lets say the local newspaper photographer, can come to a public event take a photo of me painting on a person an original piece of artwork, take a photo of me and the original artwork.  Then want to sell it to me without copyright privileges.   ???

Am I misunderstanding something here??

Cause, "Cake or death?" That's a pretty easy question.
Anyone could answer that.
"Cake or death?"
"Eh, cake please."

Gwen aka Punstergal

I think a lot of it has to to with where you are. I know that most festivals for instance, have clauses on their tickets and employee contracts which give a generic "implied consent" disclaimer- saying that by being on the premises, you are giving your general consent to be photographed by others, who then have ownership of their photos to do with as they see fit. I've been to a lot of conventions, festivals, and parties where this is the case. The only times when I can see this being contestable would be in the event that the "model" in the photo was a minor, at which point a publisher has to have a model consent form signed by the parent before they could use the photo-- I think (and may be totally wrong, the only minor model I've ever used is my own daughter).

Other events have a "No photography" rule to prevent the use of images from the festival by anyone who is not specifically authorized to do so.. However, those events are usually more commercial or adult oriented. I have also seen vendors post specific "No Photography" rules for their own shops (presumably to discourage knock-off items, but from what I gathered while working as a boothie, it's usually to discourage the lookie-loos that just want to play dress up and not really shop). If I were you, I might inquire with the festivals whether you can put a no photography sign in your vendor space-- of course that won't prevent the artwork from being photographed later, but it can at least keep the shots of you doing the work out of circulation, maybe.

Either way, I'm sorry you've had a crummy experience with this photography situation-- I hope the universe gives you an amazing moment to make up for it.
"Hell hath no fury like an enraged Gryphon Master"

Malcolm

The operative words are "public event". Photographers can take pictures of you at any public place, be it park, street, or front yard. Only when you are in a place where you could expect complet privacy are you safe from the photographer.
That's why the doors on dressing rooms have gaps at the top and bottom. That gives the store the right to photograph you with that hidden camera and use it as evidence against shoplifters.
YOS,
Malcolm Abernethy
Knight Commander, Order of the Blue Ribbon
IBRSC #1272
1608 Society
"Be the best you can be... considering."

FaeGuardian

One additional note, is that photograph itself is also considered a work of art.  You may have been the subject photographed, but it was the photographers composition of light, angle, aperture etc. that created the final product which you find desirable.  Most newspapers have a flat fee that they charge for any prints or reprints of pictures taken by one of their photographers. 

In the future if you can remember to ask the photographer to send you a print at the time the picture is taken, you might receive a copy for free or at least a discounted price.  As this is often considered a fair trade for your cooperation.




Mistress Charlotte

#4
I  do understand the "ownership" of the Photo taken............  It's the fact that even if I purchase the photo from the photographer or "entity" such as the newspaper,  I tend to get the "copyright" issues and am not allowed to use the photo for my website as it is a promotion of myself and not the photographer..........   therefore.........it's a moot point to even purchase it. There are occasions I have received a "release of copyright" when I tell them that I will give photo credit. And I will do this............ I'm not saying that I don't like photographers taking photos of my work.  It ends up in the papers all the time.  I even give them a card so they know who painted it and for ID purposes and request a copy..  I Never get credit, and only once in 17 years have I ever received a "copy".   (and I'm sure if they work for another entity such as the newspaper........they don't have any control over the photo either and no right to just give it away.)

I'm just frutrated...............  You wouldn't be allowed to take a photo of Monet's waterlilies and then say.........OK this is my photo I took it.... I can sell it and tell other people they can't do anything with it.   I feel my art also has copyright. 

In response to above:

I ALWAYS question photographers who come around and take photos of the children in my chair.  I will stick my hand in front of the child's face and ask them who they are if I feel suspicious.....  If they are with the "event" "festival" or what not I suggest that they ask the parent if it's OK to take the photo..........The parent always says yes.... but they should ask....

Other artists will post "no photography" in the booths..........I understand why..........but I am not going to do that........After all.......once the child takes a bath........the only memory the parent has left is that photo.......  Besides...... once they leave me....... the art goes with them...........  so what would be the point.

Yes..........the photographer did create a special moment with their trained eye.  And yes that is the reason I would like a copy of it.... because frankly.... I stink at photography.  It shows the whole composition beautifully and that makes it desirable to me for advertising.   Yes.... Newspapers charge a flat fee for a photo.........But I have yet to receive any permission to use it on my website (again.... personal gain).....  That's the problem.

I'm afraid I'm just being cranky.................

and..........thank you for the wish of an amazing moment.  I feel I experience amazing moments every time I log onto this site!!
Cause, "Cake or death?" That's a pretty easy question.
Anyone could answer that.
"Cake or death?"
"Eh, cake please."

Blushing

Good for you for asking questions!


Another note ... at least every publication I have ever worked for pretty much writes up the contract to the paper as an entity, not the individual, owns the copyright and control to "content" - be it photos or stories.


I'll take photos of you this season - promise!  Although I'm certainly not remotely as talented as some of the folks here.
~All human activity lies within the artist's scope~

Deckyon

One othe thing to consider as well.  I am only talking of myself here, no one else.  When I am shooting people at faire or events or anywhere else, I am shooting a scene, regardless of what artwork may be in the composition.

I have photos of people doing their paintings or whatever, but it is NOT the artwork that is the subject.  It is the people involved in the artwork, be it the artist or the "canvas".  The camera captures the scene.  Taking the Monet example - no, you cant sell a photograph of just the Monet painting , but you CAN (unes forbidden by the establishment where the painting is located) sell a photograph of a scene with the painting in it.  Like having a family holding hands, tallest to shortest (for example) in front of the painting looking up at it.  I have scene many of these.

As for copyright and who holds it - depends on the contract.  I made sure that, even though I am shooting for the faire, I own the rights, they have right to use.  There are so many caveots to this, it is impossible to go over them all in one screen.

Yes, good photographers get a bad rap from the bad ones.  Cant escape it.  Just realize, a good photographer will either ask for permission, or will than you after ward and ask.  Candids cant be asked for beforehand - natural behavior is changed when people know a lens is pointed at them.  As for gaining permission, if there is a general "ticket-holder gives permission by entering with ticket to be photographed" then that is permission enough, even if they do not expressly give their right.  not reading the ticket is not an excuse.  In participation, that same clause is in there as well for vendors and acts.  ESPECIALLY for staff photographers...  If someone posts "no photography in booth" they need to have written documentation from the event staff/owners/directors first, or they themselves could be in violation of their terms.

There is a lot to think about with public photography...  both for the public, and the photographer.
Thanks,
Brad

Cerarienh

Hmm yeah it really depends on the photographer . . . sorry you had a bad experience.   :(

Like some of the others here (some who have posted a reply and some who have not) I don't try to sell people their own pictures from public events.  I usually give them copies in exchange for credit as the photographer.  (As you already know *wink*)  Of course . . . I was also raised by parents who would have KICKED MY BUTT for being so rude if I dared to do otherwise . . .  ;)

jcbanner

I have a few ways of looking at this myself.  looking at the portfolios that people have posted online, I've seen several pictures of myself at diffrent faires, I often get a little thrill at it.    but as always, some of the sites have the pictures availible to buy.

I look at this in two ways: at first, I get a bit miffed at someone trying to make a profit off my likeness without my consent and that even though its a picture of me, I'd have to buy it from them.  but on the otherhand, they ARE trying to make a living.  If I hired a photographer to come out and take pictures of what I'm doing, it would cost me a whole lot more, and in most cases, they would still own the copyrights.

AbleArcher

I'm a photographer, and I spent last Fall documenting the Carolina Ren Fest.  I put up small websized images on my site for the performers and patrons to have, if they wanted them.  I only requested fair credit for display purposes. Unfortunately, most who took my images did not credit at all, so they have ruined it for themselves.  I have decided to now have a gallery with protection and watermarks.  Pics are free to look at...if you like it enough to want to have a personal copy..you have to buy it.  Simple.  Photographers have mortgages too.

If it's good enough to desire it enough to have your own copy, then I have done my job, and I deserve fair compensation for my efforts....my time...my web hosting costs...equipment....etc

I would expect from one artisan to another that you would respect their craft, as you would want them to respect yours.  From your description, you didn't mention that you 'had' to have the picture.  You could probably look at it for free.  The photographer took a picture of you performing your craft on someone...so I don't see the big deal there. In fact, there isn't any sort of moral, ethical or legal questions about it.

If you don't want your picture taken...just ask nicely, and they probably will comply.

Mistress Charlotte

AbleArcher.  It's obvious that I have offended you.  First let me say..  I apologize. 

I am very sorry that you have had bad experiences.  I am very conscience of giving credit to the photographers who have taken photos of me.  And of course you deserve to receive compensation.

Please understand that my issue is not with the purchase of the photo.  I purchase photos from photographers all the time.  As mentioned previously, there are photographers who take really great shots of me and my art.  Some of my best pieces were taken by photographers. 

The subject matter of my post is the copyright of the photo.  Would you feel it is fair that if I purchased a photo from you, would you allow me to have a release of copyright and post it on my website for my personal use?  Especially since the subject matter of the photo is my artwork. My instincts tell me that you probably would. I think most photographers are OK with this.  It's just on occasion; I am denied a release of copyright. So at that point.... The photo really is no good to me... so I don't buy it.  I don't need to "record" the work.  I need the photos for promotional purposes.  Of course, I can take my own photos and on occasion I take a really good one, but it is a rare case.  It just annoys me that, on occasion, the photograph entity (and I never mentioned that it was renaissance faire related)  denies me a release of copyright.

I posted this topic about 10 minutes after I had tried to receive copyright permission from the local newspaper and was adamantly denied.    And I will NOT post a photo unless I have permission to do so.  So, .... I did not purchase the photo and I really wanted it.  The photo was a bald head....the back of a bald head – so there was no "face" involved.  It was a photo specifically of the "Art".  I felt ripped off.... and not financially, I had already decided that I would have paid for it
Cause, "Cake or death?" That's a pretty easy question.
Anyone could answer that.
"Cake or death?"
"Eh, cake please."

renfairephotog

I sure you didn't intend to offend. 

As far as people  using photos and not leaving credit it's happened to me as well.  I find pics in Myspace albums.  I've been watermarking fora while. I also use Meta tags in Photoshop.
Twenty seasons of covering renaissance  festivals. Photos/calendar/blog.
Fairy photographer

AbleArcher

No, I am not offended at all.  My apologies if it seemed that way.

It's obvious that the issue is about the use of the photo.  You wanted to use it to self promote, and that is understandable.  However, the answer was "no" from the newspaper.  I can imagine that it is just their policy, so that they don't have to police how their work is used and keep up after people who don;t follow their guidelines.

What I would suggest is to hire a photographer to take some promotional images for you.  Get a contract which states the terms specifically.

Here's an example of how something might get out of control....

I put an image up of lets say, San Diego the Spanish Magician during his act.  The picture depicts him performing on stage one of his signature pieces.  He see the image in my gallery, and asks to purchase it for personal use.  No problem.

Now, next year at the fair, I see San Diego selling DVDs of his act.  Guess which picture is prominently displayed on the front of his DVD?  Now, I sold him a $3 4x6 for personal use....not for promotional use, and I surely did not release a copyright for it. perhaps he was ignorant of the law, but it was a costly mistake, and the law is most definitley on the side of the copyright holder...

Now, had San Diego asked for the image for his DVD promotions, and a Copyright...that $3 image would now be more valuable and cost more for him to use. 

Perhaps the newspaper just doesn't want to get into the business of selling their copyrights.  Who knows.

Quote from: Mistress Charlotte on May 24, 2008, 10:10:45 PM
AbleArcher.  It's obvious that I have offended you.  First let me say..  I apologize. 

I am very sorry that you have had bad experiences.  I am very conscience of giving credit to the photographers who have taken photos of me.  And of course you deserve to receive compensation.

Please understand that my issue is not with the purchase of the photo.  I purchase photos from photographers all the time.  As mentioned previously, there are photographers who take really great shots of me and my art.  Some of my best pieces were taken by photographers. 

The subject matter of my post is the copyright of the photo.  Would you feel it is fair that if I purchased a photo from you, would you allow me to have a release of copyright and post it on my website for my personal use?  Especially since the subject matter of the photo is my artwork. My instincts tell me that you probably would. I think most photographers are OK with this.  It's just on occasion; I am denied a release of copyright. So at that point.... The photo really is no good to me... so I don't buy it.  I don't need to "record" the work.  I need the photos for promotional purposes.  Of course, I can take my own photos and on occasion I take a really good one, but it is a rare case.  It just annoys me that, on occasion, the photograph entity (and I never mentioned that it was renaissance faire related)  denies me a release of copyright.

I posted this topic about 10 minutes after I had tried to receive copyright permission from the local newspaper and was adamantly denied.    And I will NOT post a photo unless I have permission to do so.  So, .... I did not purchase the photo and I really wanted it.  The photo was a bald head....the back of a bald head – so there was no "face" involved.  It was a photo specifically of the "Art".  I felt ripped off.... and not financially, I had already decided that I would have paid for it


Mistress Charlotte

#13
Quote from: AbleArcher on May 25, 2008, 09:35:41 AM
No, I am not offended at all.  My apologies if it seemed that way.

What I would suggest is to hire a photographer to take some promotional images for you.  Get a contract which states the terms specifically.

Here's an example of how something might get out of control....

I put an image up of lets say, San Diego the Spanish Magician during his act.  The picture depicts him performing on stage one of his signature pieces.  He see the image in my gallery, and asks to purchase it for personal use.  No problem.

Now, next year at the fair, I see San Diego selling DVDs of his act.  Guess which picture is prominently displayed on the front of his DVD?  Now, I sold him a $3 4x6 for personal use....not for promotional use, and I surely did not release a copyright for it. perhaps he was ignorant of the law, but it was a costly mistake, and the law is most definitley on the side of the copyright holder...

Now, had San Diego asked for the image for his DVD promotions, and a Copyright...that $3 image would now be more valuable and cost more for him to use. 


I'm glad I didn't offend you.... Whew...  That was not my intent.  I just need to understand why, in some cases,  it is so difficult.

Case in point -   This is a very good example.  I see this point clearly.  Because this is exactly why I purchase the photos............  I have full intent to use the purchased photo in these types of ways, for personal promotion.  That is why I ask for copyright.  So when I see a fabulous photo and I really want it...........  Maybe what I need to do is ask to "purchase" the copyright..........   

Is there such a thing?  The ability to "purchase" the copyright to a photo?

The newspaper is very difficult.................  I like their photos because they are "work in progress photos" and "high profile event photos"

Hire a photographer - I have been mulling this around in my head for a while.........

I am happy with the direction this thread is going.......
Cause, "Cake or death?" That's a pretty easy question.
Anyone could answer that.
"Cake or death?"
"Eh, cake please."

DT_Masters

#14
Generally, it is the point of being in a public place where one does not have an expectation of privacy. Such a clause or words to that effect is the basic concept of most court cases dealing in such a subject, such as the 4th amendment. Basically.

Now that said, as a photographer, I do try to be reasonable. If I am in a public place, I know I can take pictures without much of a reservation. I do have personal codes, though, that I subscribe to. If I see that someone is uncomfortable about the lens pointed their way, I may not take that shot. I do not post pictures of those I know to be currently underage on the net. There are certain "no shoot" angles. I try not to shoot "live" artwork, such as paintings in process, such as figurines for sale ....... though there are other times, such as on a photo recon, when they, art work in general, are the subject.

Consider this:



I took that at TRF last Fall. It took me a few approaches to get into the proper angle so I could get the artist, but not the painting nor the store she was infront of. The subject, the story, was the artist.

I say I am an amateur photographer ....... but I do have standards that may be professional that I follow.