Legal Question: What is a photo worth?

[JeffReef]

JeffReef, I can appreciate your intent in that "it's just not worth the effort," but what's killing me is that we always read about who has what rights, and yadda yadda, but I feel like the photography industry is filled with surrender. It's almost like everyone's always saying "Yes, we have the power, we own the photos, we're entitled, but it's not worth the effort." If that's the case... You don't have the power and the legalities are worthless. I'm sick of this industry "lying down and taking it" so to speak.

If you have nothing better to do with your time, then by all means stand up for your rights and take him to court. It will probably cost you more than the $750 that you're after but you got to do what you got to do.

Jeffreef, the opportunity costs are not greater than the reward for me. I just want it to be "right."

Best of luck should you decide to pursue this; And keep us posted on your progress.

 

[allauction]

Did you shoot pictures inside of his store and of his merchandise? If so, then that could change things in the eyes of a judge. I am a pro photographer and I have releases signed on everything I shoot or I don't shoot it unless it is in a public place. In which no one or no thing has any implied expectation of privacy. It is too bad that it is at a point of calling names and threats, you may have been able to get a little recognition on the site and picked up a few referrals. Unless you shot the pics with the agreement of payment from him, which if it is verbal it doesn't mean crap, then you should not expect to get paid $2500, or anything, for a picture on a web site. Unless you are shooting for Nat Geo or Sports Illustrated, you are not going to get paid anything even in the same universe as that. I have shot for the Travel Channel and other websites and avg less than $100 per shot for web shots. The guy could go on a micro stock photo site and buy a stock photo for $10 or $20, so I doubt that a judge is going to give you thousands for a pic. You may just have to chalk it up to experience and learn an important lesson from it.

 

[allauction]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12977897#post12977897 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by "Umm, fish?"
Sure. Service providers can be liable if their sites are knowingly used to serve copyrighted material and they don't do anything about it. The two key points being "knowingly" (you have to tell them) and "they don't do anything" (they ignore you when you tell them).

The other problem is going to be that the photos aren't copyrighted. Unless you have a watermark, signature or have used a metadata editor and embedded your copyright information into the photo, it is not copyrighted. Just because you took the photo does not give you implied copyright, which is a bunch of crap in my professional opinion. There are massive lawsuits in the courts nowadays over who owns the rights and the courts have typically said that just because someone shoots a picture that they do not own it. All of the professional photographer organizations are fighting legislation that is going to pretty much strip photographers of their rights.
The biggest proble that I see here is that there is nothing in writing to protect either person in this case.

 

[drparker]

You own a copyright as soon as you author the work of art. If it is never registered and never published then your copyright is for the life of the artist plus 70 years. This is from the Copyright office

"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.” "

"If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner. "




Copyright chart - Cornell

Do I need Permission


Copyright

 

["Umm fish?"]

The other problem is going to be that the photos aren't copyrighted. Unless you have a watermark, signature or have used a metadata editor and embedded your copyright information into the photo, it is not copyrighted. Just because you took the photo does not give you implied copyright, which is a bunch of crap in my professional opinion. There are massive lawsuits in the courts nowadays over who owns the rights and the courts have typically said that just because someone shoots a picture that they do not own it. All of the professional photographer organizations are fighting legislation that is going to pretty much strip photographers of their rights.

This is false. Clicking the shutter gives you copyright.

 

[JHemdal]

Regarding the value of aquarium photographs - commercially, the going rate is $20 to $50 each for non-exclusive use in books or magazines. The highest amount I've received so far this year was $100 for the cover of an e-magazine. I can't speak towards damages and what you might be able to collect from that, but unless you have a record of selling items out of your portfolio for $250, you would have a difficult time convincing a court that your work is worth that.....


Jay

 

[jwedehase]

Jay, thank you for the response. It's nice to have some hard facts.

Here's what I've learned.

Unfortunately, this is a done topic. I don't have a property release, and that's a deal killer here. As I understand, he also doesn't have a photo release, so it might be a stale mate, but I don't know what that entails.

I've read about, and spoken with people who have had this exact type of thing happen. Their examples show a precedent of "You didn't have a property release." Photographer loses again. Copyright right are theoretical only and weightless in court.

 

["Umm fish?"]

Still doesn't give him ownership of your work. I'd still try writing the letter to his web host. They would likely take your work down and that would then give him the problem of trying to prove that he owns the work, which he cannot do.

 

[jwedehase]

Andy, that would be a political mess. The host is a mutual personal friend. I really don't want to throw him into the middle of this. It's not worth a friendship.

 

[maroun.c]

Do the pictures show that they were taken in his shop? a shot of some fish can be taken anywhere so unless your shots include whole tank shots or very indetifiable rock structure, or maybe shot of the shop... He cannot prove that you did take them in his shop and therefore needed a release? If you didn't have the release to shoot them he also did not have the right to use them too and I would use that just to get him to remove them even if I get no compensation as this is just personal at this stage after the name calling...

 

[GaryR1984]

Jason,

I work for an intellectual property firm that represents major manufacturers in a variety of markets.

I'm quite sure I can give you some details if you have any questions.

If it's not about the money, The first thing I would do is go see an IP Lawyer and start drafting a legal cease and desist letter.

The ISP is not liable for anything unless you notify them. It will also have to be legally binding and you will need to show proof you own the image, most easily done by providing a link to a website owned by you showing where the image is located.

PM me if you any questions that I can assist with. I'll come back to this thread is anyone has questions.