|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Fairuse Doctrine and Photographers
I've come across a few Post here that just have eriked me ( typical as usual) and I through I'd share with you what your copyright can actually do for you. First off. Yes (you) as a Photographer own the copyright to your image. But how far does your copyright actually go? Well if someone has retouched your image...not terribly. The US Government ( Sorry if you're outside the US) Protects free speech. Which goes to examine if the work was "Transformative" to the Original. If you are a retoucher and you had Truly retouched the image then...ding ding ding You are protected by the Fair use Doctrine. (it's not always that straight forward but..Generally) This is examined within the language of the Doctrine by a few questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? The Doctrine also goes on to expand upon other use cases Such as Commentary and Criticism. Uses for Education and Parody. So the next time as a photographer feel so bold to say, "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THESE IMAGES WITHOUT MY PERMISSION" in your "Retoucher Contest". Forgive me for just rolling my eyes. Yes I know you as a photographer must take measures to protect your work, but the Law does not allow you to apply your copyright to Transformative examples of your work. Your copyright ends when someone adds their own artistic expression to it. Jun 26 14 07:19 pm Link Nathanfx wrote: If it were that simple, things would be much simpler. Jun 26 14 08:19 pm Link You are missing a key component. In order for you to take my image and do something transformative to it you need my permission. If you don't have said permission you have violated my Copyright. Jun 26 14 08:52 pm Link Protect your assets, if you intend to act on this assumption of rights. Jun 26 14 09:01 pm Link This is very interesting thread . There are two levels of retouching where we can discuss about copyrights. First level is basic retouching or high end retouching where you as a retoucher works on client's file and when you don't change original scenery and setting. You just make skin retouching and whatever else. In that case photographer is 100% copyright owner of his/her file like usually. Second level is very complex advertising retouching where you as a retoucher or retouching agency works from scratch. For example you receive simple file over studio background and you make complete new scenery with CGI and composite work from scratch , in that case you as a retoucher or agency is a copyright owner of your own new CGI scenery and background and yes you can ask theoretically for 50-50% copyright or for extra fees for using your idea, scenery and background. Personally I never ask for that when I work composite work for clients , no matter if I make complete new scenery from scratch. I will see how things work in the future on the market . I had launch last week with one my new client and they told me that their previous retouching agency asked for copyright and extra fees for using their background and scenery which they made from scratch in advertising campaign and that's the reason why they didn't continue to work with them. Also here is very interesting link so you can read http://www.heathermorton.ca/blog/?p=1827 Theoretically, you as a retoucher can ask for copyright or extra usage fees especially when you work from scratch but many people don't like to hear that so you can easily loose your client. Hope this helped Best, ST Jun 27 14 11:30 am Link Nathanfx wrote: Oh... I would double check that information if I were you.... With a lawyer Jun 27 14 01:08 pm Link There are a couple of law suits I can think of that don't agree with you. Just out of curiosity, are you a lawyer dealing with intellectual property? From the US Copyright Office: Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. Even the US Copyright Office does not draw clear lines. They leave it open to interpretation. That's usually decided in mediation or the courtroom. You may be right. You may be wrong..but the deciding factor can be VERY expensive to obtain. I TOO roll my eyes when I read how people bandy about "Fair Use" as an excuse for pretty much any reinterpretation of another's work. Jun 27 14 02:02 pm Link Nathanfx wrote: You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? The right to create derivative works is a part of the copyright held by the silly photographer. Also, the copyright does NOT end. If you actually go far enough to create a transformative work or derivative work, the underlying copyright still holds for the original art. It does not end until the copyright term expires. Jun 27 14 03:32 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: I think this, pretty much, says it all! Jun 27 14 03:45 pm Link I'm sure photographers will be lining up at your door for you to work on their files. Jun 27 14 03:47 pm Link Nathanfx wrote: and your transformative expression ends when you wake up in a gutter and your fingers are nowhere to be found. Jun 27 14 04:07 pm Link MDWM wrote: +1 Jun 27 14 06:58 pm Link MDWM wrote: +1 Jun 27 14 08:22 pm Link Nathanfx wrote: It seems a lot of time when I shoot a model he/she does something completely creative that wasn't my idea at all. I push a button and capture the image. So....who owns that? Jun 27 14 08:39 pm Link OP has not idea of how copyright and fair use works. Fair use does exist but it is far more limited than the OP claims. Above all there are not very well defined rules and most cases are not clear cut. This leads to litigation that can often lead to litigation and significant legal fees. IF someone wants to play Russian roulette with copyright and fair use they better have deep pockets. Even in the case of Parody, one of the most well defined parts of fair use, it is still something to approach with care. I have worked on comedy and every item every used in parody was run by a specialized entertainment Lawyer. Jun 28 14 10:54 am Link In behance The photographer either publishes the work under creative commons or specifies that it cannot be used or ALTERED without explicit permission. I presume that if I publish my work and state that it cannot be modified or used in any way without explicit permission, that will hold up in court. If you think that way, then start a stock photography website, except steal all the Getty Images stock photos, remove water marks. Jun 29 14 09:39 pm Link Nathanfx wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 106 provides: Jun 29 14 09:55 pm Link See a lawyer, you are very misinformed. If you want to own the copyright pay for it or go to the university and become the photographer. Jun 29 14 10:00 pm Link MDWM wrote: Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Jun 30 14 12:47 am Link MDWM wrote: They don't have to, according to the post anyone can just alter whatever images they please with disregard to copyright ownership. Jul 01 14 11:41 pm Link |
