and please use their services
Images found on the Internet are fair use???
- Thread starter Andy82
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,269
- Edit My Images
- No
Without in any way taking sides I'll just point out that there are other views of copyright...
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/new-copyright-rules-risk-freedom-speech
https://copyfighters.eu/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/16/article_13_rapporteur/
https://www.danieldaltonmep.co.uk/news/my-views-copyright-directive
http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/06/article_0009.html
If there really is a problem it goes much deeper than technical issues. There's a strong and growing copyleft movement for creative material (images included) based on the licenses that govern the use of open source software...
https://creativecommons.org/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/copyleft/
https://wptavern.com/13-sources-for-free-public-domain-and-cc0-licensed-images
https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/
https://resignal.com/blog/30-free-image-websites-creative-commons-royalty-free/
With all this going on it's not surprising that a great deal of confusion surrounds the copyright of images displayed on the web. It seems the only practical method of obtaining payment for use is a completely closed system where only signed up members are allowed to view your images. Such a policy will effectively leave the field to the copylefters and further reduce the expectations of potential customers.
I repeat that I'm not taking sides here - just laying out some of the issues faced by photographers trying to sell pictures taken speculatively.
- Messages
- 9,793
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Plenty of places, and I get out a lot more more than you might think, and a mobile phone in many counrties consists of old worn out nokias or whatever they can get, not with cameras, and then it's only in the populated cities. I've been to these places. Once you leave the built up areas your back in the stone age nearly.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought we were all on the same side here...
There's a problem, what's the answer?
Hi Hoppy,
there is a problem, I agree if you want payment for images you post on the internet are used without your consent but with the growing number of royalty free images becoming available may the problem reduce as there will be no need to 'copy' an image when there is an abundance of free images available anyway?
Thoughts?
- Messages
- 25,332
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Without being rude...
Free images are not the solution, they’re the root of the problem. Read the judges summing up.
Free images, and amateur photographers giving away work create a misunderstanding that all photography should be free. This case is a natural result of that.
Likewise a case I recently advised on where a local paper having been given a bunch of images for an event, trawled the net for alternatives, then just assumed the owners of those images wouldn’t want paying either.
I appreciate this ship has sailed for the most part , but that doesn’t mean that we all have to work for free, just that we all have to understand the law, our rights, and have a little respect for what that means.
Only the Americans believe that their treatment of copyright is the right way to go, because like every other facet of their society, it’s designed to make money for lawyers.
This case will almost certainly be overridden by a higher court, and by the time it’s settled, the photographer will be paid peanuts compared to what the lawyers make.
- Messages
- 2,996
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Plenty of places in the UK with no mobile coverage, including parts of Lincolnshire.
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Really! I never cease to be amazed at how far they have penetrated. I've spent a lot of time away from cities and tourists and there are usually mobile phones with cameras.
Places like the DR Congo, PNG Highlands, Arunachel in India and some very remote areas of Yunnan in China. We have noticed that times have changed and we are now as likely to be photographed as to photograph. It is one of the more obvious changes in this world.
It is very noticeable in the PNG Highlands where there the only reason people want money is to pay for mobile phones. They pick wild coffee to pay for mobile phones (beats walking 10km to visit auntie Mabel). Few of these people have computers, so we haven't seen much impact yet, but it will come. They are just learning for the moment.
As for being back in the stone age, those places are very hard to find nowdays.
Extreme poverty in this world has declined dramatically over the last 15 years and one of the results is mobile phones.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Good points raised Phil
In respect to professional photographers posting images online what would be your advice to them? Is it a case of weighing up the Pros vs Cons of putting images online and accepting that some may be copied and prosecuting where possible?
Hopefully there will always be a market for good photography (I'm sure there will be) but prosecuting indiscretions across borders is always challenging and as you quite rightly say it makes money for only one group of people and usually not the photographer :-(
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure I agree Phil and if free images are the root of the problem as you say, then I think it's important to be clear about what 'free' images are exactly. Using genuinely rights-free images? Lifting images in contravention of copyright? Amateur enthusiasts shooting 'commissions' for no charge? They may all be part and parcel of the industry's woes, but they're not the same thing. The latter, amateurs shooting for free, is not a copyright question at all.
But don't just point the finger at well-meaning amateurs for that. The reason why professional photography is undervalued is because technology has de-skilled the techniques and craft, and the internet has made millions of quality images instantly available to everyone. That's the same photo technology and media as we all use every day and it's naive to think that such fundamental and dramatic changes will not have some detrimental side effects. It's happened in other industries time after time after time. Creating quality images is not the difficult and costly task it once was, hence a lot of people are doing it to a high standard and they enjoy it. That's not going to stop just because it gives professionals a hard time.
But regardless of what we all might think, the point I made early on in this thread is that I think the weight of public opinion is shifting away from automatic copyright protection for all, and this case ruling (daft though it may be) is clear evidence of that. In which case, the law will follow (eventually) and stamping our feet and constantly crying foul won't help.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,332
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I’ve said it before, if you’ve already been paid for work, post it freely.Good points raised Phil
In respect to professional photographers posting images online what would be your advice to them? Is it a case of weighing up the Pros vs Cons of putting images online and accepting that some may be copied and prosecuting where possible?
Hopefully there will always be a market for good photography (I'm sure there will be) but prosecuting indiscretions across borders is always challenging and as you quite rightly say it makes money for only one group of people and usually not the photographer :-(
If it’s work you hope to get paid for, you have to limit the file size and use a watermark.
(They are pretty much industry standards though)
If you’re an amateur or a pro and you’re sharing high quality images, just for the sake of it, you have to be aware there’s a chance that they may be stolen and used by others. You have to weigh up those risks. There are tools to help find your images used elsewhere, which might be worth it for you.
As @Hoppy UK points out though, there probably is a need for a fresh look at this, but the last 2 attempts to modernise copyright law failed miserably.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Very good and practical summary Phil
I'm not optimistic that any new copyright laws will be very satisfactory. It's an incredibly complicated subject that has to cover all intellectual property and creative works across all media. As I mentioned above, it only worked (mostly) for us in the film era by default - basically because the photographer always held the negatives necessary for a high quality copy.
A bit off-topic, but here's an interesting scenario:
The local MP on walkabout stops on a street corner to give an impromptu speech to the assembled media. Guy from the local paper takes it down in shorthand, a freelance photographer shoots some stills, girl from local radio station records the audio and a TV crew film it all. Who owns copyright?
The answer is they all do, they all own copyright in their individual media as they were the first to commit the speech to permanent record. However, if they were formally employed, the law automatically defers those rights to their employer. If they were freelance, they would own copyright personally by default though their individual commissioning terms would apply.
The MP holds nothing, free and open speech is not covered, though if he'd written it down first and read it out, he would own copyright of that as a separate work. It's all a bit bonkers and I'd say almost impossible to draw up satisfactorily in law, certainly not as a simple and easy one-size-fits-all
NB It's worth noting that if you are formally employed* and take pictures that are in any way connected with or enabled by your job, in or out of normal working hours, your employer almost certainly owns copyright. The only way to avoid that is to have a separate clause put in your contract.
*Simple check, if your employer deducts tax at source, you're formally employed. If they don't, you may still be an employee on some aspects of employment law.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,332
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Just out of churlishness ; this isn’t entirely true, there are some schemes sanctioned by HMRC where a contractor will deduct some income tax and pay it on behalf of a sub contractor.
Sub contractor status can be a minefield, likewise directors.
Just goes to show, even the simplest things have occasional complications.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I just edited that last line slightly while you were typing. Basically HMRC hates freelance sub-contractors as they see it as an open door to avoiding or reducing income tax and claiming various tax allowances they have no real way of monitoring. Employers like it because it reduces costs, eg holidays, pension, maternity etc. Constant game of cat and mouse.
The point about employers copyright is still valid though. Basically if you have a proper job and your contract doesn't include a specific clause about photography, then there's a very good chance your employer owns more than you think. It's rarely a problem in practise so doesn't get much air time, but from my background in a big media company I could give you some painful examples of that one coming home to roost.
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,686
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It seems to me that this case example is being blown a bit out of proportion... the title was certainly meant to enflame. The judge ruled (erroneously IMO) that this use, in this case, was fair use due to several noted mitigating reasons. The ruling does NOT say that you can just grab any image from the internet, do anything you want with it, and it will be fair use.
I don't really agree that technology has de-skilled the craft. It has changed it, but in many ways that has increased the demands/requirements/skills required IMO. But it has certainly lowered the entry point. I actually think the issue is that most people don't really appreciate photography (or most any art form) to a great extent... I don't think they really ever did. It's always been mostly is the image suitable and is the price acceptable? These days there are millions of images that meet the minimum requirement of being suitable, and many of them can be had for next to nothing (or less).
I think the usage copyright will eventually go towards a strictly commercial concern... I.e. how much percentage of money for percentage of contribution. The remaining copyrights will apply only to physical representations (i.e. prints), which is pretty much the way it used to be before digital.
I don't really agree that technology has de-skilled the craft. It has changed it, but in many ways that has increased the demands/requirements/skills required IMO. But it has certainly lowered the entry point. I actually think the issue is that most people don't really appreciate photography (or most any art form) to a great extent... I don't think they really ever did. It's always been mostly is the image suitable and is the price acceptable? These days there are millions of images that meet the minimum requirement of being suitable, and many of them can be had for next to nothing (or less).
I think the usage copyright will eventually go towards a strictly commercial concern... I.e. how much percentage of money for percentage of contribution. The remaining copyrights will apply only to physical representations (i.e. prints), which is pretty much the way it used to be before digital.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
As John McEnroe would say, you cannot be serious that technology has not de-skilled the craft. All you need is one eye and a finger, and with no more visual perception than most people were born with, anybody can take photos that would pass your 'fit for purpose and price' criteria. If by 'lowered the entry point' you mean cost, then absolutely. Combine the two and it's hardly surprising that commercial photography has suffered.
I agree that there is very little real art in most photography, but not certainly not all. Distinctions are hard to draw. Copyright law was and is primarily designed to protect the commercial interests of intellectual property. That has been distorted over time, but it's not intended to protect photographers' delicate egos.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,769
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
If you change the word 'photographer' to 'artist', that's pretty much exactly what the original act was for.
The 1734 Engraving Copyright Act was prompted by Hogarth whose fury was driven not just by loss of revenue but more importantly by the audacity of the print bootleggers who were copying his work.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,614
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My Mother-in-law's mobile phone doesn't have a camera. Easy to get a camera-less phone here (UK).
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
If you change the word 'photographer' to 'artist', that's pretty much exactly what the original act was for.
The 1734 Engraving Copyright Act was prompted by Hogarth whose fury was driven not just by loss of revenue but more importantly by the audacity of the print bootleggers who were copying his work.
Copyright law has always been primarily intended to protect commercial interest in original creative works, ie it's about money (not ego) and art (not craft skill). According to my in-depth research over the last three minutes, I think that includes Hogarth
My point about many photographers and their fake indignation (which we've seen played out on here before) is that they often don't have any real commercial interest to protect. However, others do and that needs to be preserved rather than diluted by frivolous claims.
Edit: where craft skill ends and art begins is a good question. Seems to me there is a good deal of craft skill in art, and often artistic and creative effort in craft works... In practise, there are big overlaps covered under the general banner of 'intellectual property'.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, you are right, they don't all have cameras. But, many do and it is rapidly becoming more common. The world is changing very quickly and many in the 1st world aren't seeing it. We travel more, but just to "bucket list" locations, and we see remarkably little.
I read recently that a poll in the UK indicated that most people thought that world poverty was getting worse. It isn't. In fact it is the complete opposite. What's that got to do with photography? Well, quite a lot. Not only are the number of cameras increasing dramatically, but the people using them are changing too.
How will this effect copyright? I don't know, but things will change and it is unlikely to be inside our control.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,686
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
By "the craft" I am referring the knowledge/skills/technique/equipment required to deliver top level images... these days that also includes the skill/knowledge required to use advanced editing tools. And IMO, what qualifies as a top level image has also greatly increased. What used to pass as a great image due to the limitations of film/equipment will no longer cut it (and also due to "desensitizing" IMO).
By "lowered entry point" I am referring to the costs and craft required to create images minimally fit for purpose and price. And that's where I think the issue really lies; that requirement is (and probably always has been) quite low in general... the majority of "consumers" of photography really do not care all that much about it in any technical/artistic sense.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
So, the work required to produce a good photograph has been greatly reduced and the general quality of a good photograph has greatly increased. This doesn't sound like a problem to me, at least not as far a photography is concerned.
I can understand why people would mourn the loss of film processing as it is a skill that went from being a job ticket to something that has essentially no monetary value. It never really had anything to do with the creation of a picture.
I look back on the type of photos/ films that I take and many of them were just not possible (or prohibitively expensive) in the past. Things like focus stacking or time lapse were either impossible or impractical for most situations.
I think many old photographers look back to the days when they could take any old photo and it would stand out because of their skills with film. Much more difficult to stand out now. As you say, most people really don't care as long as the photography reaches a certain minimum level.
The old days of photography are gone, but there are endless new opportunities. We just need to be open to the possibilities.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I personally wouldn't say Digital photography is any less skilful than film photography - they just require different skill sets in different areas.
I love film, was brought up on it and was lucky enough to have parents that built a proper darkroom for me as a teenager so I could develop and print my own images. Most people couldn't dream of having access to their own darkroom or the time to do their own developing and printing so you had an instant advantage over a large percentage of photographers.
In the digital age almost all households that have a digital camera will also have access to a home computer where basic editing is easy so the 'standard' has been risen, however when you see exceptional photographs they still stand out! Some of the editing skills in Photoshop are incredible and the composites display photography like a superb art form - this is every bit as skilled IMO than the old darkroom work was.
I love film, was brought up on it and was lucky enough to have parents that built a proper darkroom for me as a teenager so I could develop and print my own images. Most people couldn't dream of having access to their own darkroom or the time to do their own developing and printing so you had an instant advantage over a large percentage of photographers.
In the digital age almost all households that have a digital camera will also have access to a home computer where basic editing is easy so the 'standard' has been risen, however when you see exceptional photographs they still stand out! Some of the editing skills in Photoshop are incredible and the composites display photography like a superb art form - this is every bit as skilled IMO than the old darkroom work was.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
How can you say that, and then say this...
...and conclude that digital isn't far easier than film? Good cameras are cheap and very easy to use with no photographic skill, and you don't need a darkroom or costly processing lab.
But either way, the indisputable fact is that today almost everyone has a decent camera and access to a computer, plus the low-level skills needed to use them both to good effect. And they do - everyone is a photographer now, and that's what's killing professional business.
- Messages
- 9,269
- Edit My Images
- No
It's unfortunate that some people would rather shoot the messenger than consider the message.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That's only to be expected I guess, but it's all technology-led rather than amateurs doing work for free or giving images away. Cause and effect. And it's the same technology that we all use too. An old proverb about eating cake springs to mind
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,686
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Kind of, but not really... the increased possibilities that exist due to the technology don't really help if your profession and passion is in photographing people (portraits/weddings/etc)... or most other fields really...
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You see Hoppy, this is dead easy for most good Pro Togs who have a natural artistic talent that 'just' seem able to see a good picture before they capture it!
Let me try and explain my reasoning to help others understand (so far off the original topic now!)
In the days of film most used to take their holiday snaps into boots and an hour later they would get their 36 prints back, most with cut off feet and trees growing out of peoples heads! Having my own darkroom meant that even cropping a picture correctly gave an advantage in relation to high proportion of amateur or casual photographers so my pictures looked great to them. I didn't find anything particularly difficult in developing/printing.
I fell in love with photography because of it's science and not art. I loved the mechanics of a camera and it's technology and the developing was my home made chemistry set. As for the art in the photograph - I haven't got an artistic bone in my body and still have to think hard about everything in this respect - usually just copying what I have seen elsewhere as I just can't look and say - 'That would make a great photo' or be creative in any of my thoughts.
As a result, in the digital age most may find it easier sitting at a computer rather than an enlarger easel but if you are not artistic it really doesn't matter how easy that step is I can't make a picture to wow; most Pro photographers are just so good at this - the technical side is easy to me as was developing/printing film but the composition isn't - I'd panic like mad if I had to take a portrait of more than one person for example because I can't work out for myself how to compose them.
It is the creativeness that I have found has reached such high levels in digital that I haven't got a hope in hell of matching - my pictures are just 'Jo-Average' and the digital equivalent of the film taken into Boots by so many years ago!
These people may not have been good at photography in the film era as they couldn't have access to a darkroom or been bothered/had time to develop their own films but it doesn't mean they are less talented; just different areas of talent.
Hope this makes sense.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed. Several billion people can now take people photos and even if one in a thousand is competent, that is a lot of competition. Probably several hundred thousand can even take ok wildlife photos (it's easy, just takes money), so you have to be very creative to sell lion photos now days.
On the other hand, photos that just weren't possible in the past are possible now, eg many macros or high quality moving pictures for individuals, but very few have the skills to do them well.
I think that the skills required to be a "good" photographer now are much greater than those required last century. A professional photographer could survive on competency in film processing with a few rules of thumb about composition and exposure. Now, to stand out, you will need a lot more. It's always a bit sad when things change.
- Messages
- 25,332
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
But you’re looking at this from a very singular viewpoint, I’m sorry you believe you’re not creative, but the whole truth is closer to this.
In film days, the first hurdle we needed to get over to be photographers was technical... can I get it in focus and properly exposed?
People of a technical nature found that fairly easy, some more ‘arty’ types struggled with those concepts.
Casual photographers bought cameras with laughable amounts of parallax issues, and only a nod to exposure and focussing control. So their images were always going to suffer from cut off feet, being slightly fuzzy etc. Those of us with SLRs just needed to frame properly get the focus right and the latitude of print film helped us to be ‘competent’.
Back then you could sell your skills based on just being barely competent.
Thankfully, technology came along and gave everyone a hand with focussing, and cleared up all but the most challenging (or artistic) exposure issues.
By this point a ‘good photographer’ has become someone with a little creativity, or who can copy other peoples creativity.
Fast forward to the digital age, and everyone gets to play with a camera every day, if they develop an interest, it’s essy to learn how to improve (in the old days, training was difficult to find and expensive).
So Yes you’re right, nowadays only the people with some creative ability stand out, but as @HoppyUK pointed out, the technology has helped them immensely.
As a young photographer I had a couple of times in a darkroom, it wasn’t for me.
As a pro in the 90’s I paid for pro printing, which was a step up from what Boots delivered.
In the noughties every time I go to my phone or computer someone is offering me training. I can easily process my own images, courtesy of downloadable actions, easy to find instructions etc.
So not only does my camera offer so much help, the support network to help me improve creatively is massive.
- Messages
- 7,909
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
You appear to be suggesting that all the creativity is in the processing. I would say that making great pictures (rather than impressively processed ones) takes place at the pointing the camera stage. The polishing is easier these days with digital, and (as @Phil V pointed out) so is the focussing and exposing bits, but the knowing were to point the lens and when to trip the shutter are just the same as they ever were.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 25,332
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Bloody foreign internet connection.So good a comment, you posted it three times
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,671
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
So good a comment, you posted it three times
well, that made it a waste of time my tidying the duplicates away, didn't it
- Messages
- 23,539
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Creativity is an interesting concept, not least because it comes out of different people in different ways. I keep coming across composite images that make me want to explore that side of things, where the original image(s) is barely even the start.
For one person what seems creative is a matter of routine to another.
For one person what seems creative is a matter of routine to another.
Going back to the original post, it seems an EU Court has ruled that online photos can't used without the photographer's permission.
https://petapixel.com/2018/08/08/online-photos-cant-be-used-without-permission-eu-court-rules/
Furthermore
"Also, the court strongly states that it’s not the photographer’s responsibility to protect his photo from copyright infringement, stating: “it is of little importance if, as in the present case, the copyright holder does not limit the ways in which the photograph may be used by internet users.” "
https://petapixel.com/2018/08/08/online-photos-cant-be-used-without-permission-eu-court-rules/
Furthermore
"Also, the court strongly states that it’s not the photographer’s responsibility to protect his photo from copyright infringement, stating: “it is of little importance if, as in the present case, the copyright holder does not limit the ways in which the photograph may be used by internet users.” "