The objective of this task is to develop an understanding of moral rights and copyrights of the photographic industry.
Question #1
As a working professional photographer you notice that someone has used one of your images on their blog. They have not credited you for being the original photographer, nor have they said they are the photographer. It is just a personal blog showing interesting photographs from around the world.
Answer.
To be really honest I think this is the photographers fault in the first place. When ever images are uploaded to the internet (especially as a “professional photographer”) they need to have a watermark!! Ensuring all your images are imported with the correct copyright metadata is also important.
This is only a personal blog, so the blogger may not even realise that this metadata exists and that they are breeching copyright laws.
I would contact the blogger in a friendly manner and ask if they would mind adding a credit to you for the image or offer a watermarked image for the use of the blog only.
Question #2
As a wedding photographer you notice that one of your images is being used in the display window of the local shopping centre’s “quick print” printing shop. After talking with he shop owner, he tells you that a couple came in and got some enlargements done and agreed to let the shop owner display one of the images in the shop window.
Answer
So this comes down to your contract with the client. If your commissioned to take photos for a client for “private or domestic purposes” the first owner of copyright in them is the client. If you have in your contract with the client that you remain the owner of copyright then, yes this is a breach of that contract.
I don’t think that the customer is to blame here though. They were most likely flattered that the shop owner should want their photograph in the shop window and probably don’t realise there is anything wrong here. The shop on the other hand being a printing store should be fully aware of moral & copyright obligations. There are legal obligations, under the copyright act to “attribute the creator of a work” in other words credit the photographer. The printing store should be aware of the metadata stored in an image (and that’s assuming the photographer has applied the correct metadata and copyright details etc. on the file)
The fact that the store is using your image in their window for advertising purposes and financial gain I would ask the store to either credit you/your business under the image. You could supply a watermark image for this purpose or ask that the image is removed.
Question #3
As an advertising photographer you take an image of a building and a cityscape for a regular client. You agree on usage and price. It is agreed that the image can only be used for 12 months and printed up to A3 for a brochure, internal marketing and on their website and not to be used overseas. Six months later you notice your image is being used on the side of a tram, covering the entire tram. Once you start investigating the matter, you also realise that your image is being used for advertising in international magazines.
Answer
Firstly in this situation, it says that it was agreed on the usage and the price. Was there a contract signed? and was the usage stated in the contract. I have learnt this the hard way. ALWAYS have a contract and ALWAYS be aware of what is in it!! even the boring fine print.
So assuming there was a contract signed and because this is on a commercial-scale it is a criminal offence of copyright infringement. The photographer has a right to restrain the use of the images for purposes other than those which it was commissioned. The photographer is also entitled to commence an action in court and various remedies may be awarded, most likely “damages”- Damages are often based on the amount that the copyright owner would have been able to charge for the use of the material.
A court may also order a person who loses a case to pay the other party’s legal costs. However an award of costs will not always cover the full amount the person who won the case has to pay their legal representatives.
Sarah Addison 