This leaves a bad taste... photographers rights, human wrongs?

[Tinky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174710/Fury-Lee-Rigby-picture-removed-military-memorial-amid-copyright-row-MoD-photographer.html

is this right? what if you had taken an image of something or somebody that later became newsworthy?

Can't but feel the MoD messed up early on, but its the family who are suffering. What would you do?

 

[retroreflection]

The presumption of ordinary people is that when they pay for a portrait of a family member, they have secured perpetual and unlimited rights. The law may not agree, but nobody talks to the photographer when their child is missing and they need a picture to help in the search.
A person can legally push for full exploitation of their rights, but in some cases it would just be crass to do so. I hope this photographer has trouble securing new business.

 

[old-pr-pix]

At times there can be a huge difference between what is legally "right" and the right thing to do. If the story is correct, given negotiations with MoD failed, one can only assume the photographer was attempting to get substantial compensation for the use of the image. After all, he claims he has only earned 8000 pounds from it so far.

That leaves the MoD trying to balance the photographer's greed against the family's grief. I would normally favor the photographer in these types of "rights" cases; however, in this situation the photographer's action is disgusting. The photo was originally taken without anticipation of a significant future revenue stream. The photographer is simply "cashing in" on the tragedy that occurred afterwards.

 

[tolusina]

I didn't see anything in the story about the photographer securing exclusive rights not anything about a model release.

 

[kaswindell]

It seems like posting it on a memorial site should be covered as"fair use"? Similar to posting it to Facebook? Even if it isn't the photographer's greed is vile.

 

[Maximilian]

It seems like posting it on a memorial site should be covered as"fair use"?

The problem - leading to the bad taste - in this case is that the MoD took the photos on their "memorial site", didn't care and notify about the rights on the photos, and media, press, etc. didn't care either because it came from an official source and so they reused it for their articles. Here we have the commercial use that is not covered by buying "a set of photos" for private use from the photographer.
That's the story in the point of view of the photographer, Sam Szymanski.
He also set straight, that he was trying to get things right with the MoD and they just messed it up in a really bad way.

Best Solomonian solution would be to define "memorial sites" as private use but to prohibit taking/reusing photos from these sites without individual permission so the "commercial" use from newspapers must be clarified and covered by their people and lawyers.
I work in a big company and even I am aware how to use photos and clarify the copyright - not because I am a hobby photographer but because my company told me so.

But it still really leaves a bad taste

 

[AcutancePhotography]

The photo was originally taken without anticipation of a significant future revenue stream.

I think that is a very slippery slope. Are you sure you want the potential worth and copyright of a photograph to rest on this?

 

[old-pr-pix]

The photo was originally taken without anticipation of a significant future revenue stream.

I think that is a very slippery slope. Are you sure you want the potential worth and copyright of a photograph to rest on this?

Fair point, but I didn't address copyright, just value. I based my comment on several assumptions. First, that the photographer was not seeking a nominal sum or the MoD would have gladly paid it. (He trivializes the 8000 pounds he has earned thus far.) Second - although the original capture was obviously much more prestigious situation - I envision the original photo being taken much like a school class photo or sports team photo -- everyone in the group gets their picture taken one after the other. To me that sets an intrinsic value for the shot. And, I think many courts would agree. Of course there should be some premium considering events subsequent to the capture. It appears the argument is on that premium amount. (At the other extreme, consider someone who shoots for stock and invests thousands in models, exotic locations, assistants, pilots, etc. -- given equal quality, the intrinsic value of those shots should be higher.) Just look at typical stock photo values to get an idea.

If the photographer wanted 100 pounds for the MoD to use the photo I'd be "all-in" for the photographer. If he wanted 5000 pounds he's a jerk! YMMV.

 

[YuengLinger]

Definitely the wrong photo to use as a way of bringing attention to the IP rights of photographers! Makes us all look like jerks by association.

 

[awinphoto]

I didn't see anything in the story about the photographer securing exclusive rights not anything about a model release.

At least in the USA, (not sure about UK), but copyright belongs to the photographer by default. No securing exclusive rights needed, it's yours, unless you decide willingly to share or part with them, depending on the nature of your working relationship. As far as a model release, you DO NOT NEED a model release to get copyright... you have it from the moment you snap the shutter. The model release basically means they CANNOT come after you (the model/client) for money or rights for you to use your images taken of them in marketing/promo/advertising.

 

[NancyP]

I hate to see this. Photographer got paid to shoot photo back when the soldier was alive. It's a routine portrait. The graceful and patriotic thing to do would have been for the photographer to give unlimited use to the DoM for memorial purposes. They aren't using it for a recruiting brochure, which would be a situation where photographer should get ongoing royalties. I don't knpw anything about copyright law in the UK. If the news agencies are paying a fee, it would be a nice gesture to assign the fee to any trust fund set up for the bereaved children (if soldier had kids) or widow or parents. There's just something awful about profiting from someone's death without having shared in the risk.

Behaving well might have gotten the photographer some local goodwill, also. P-o the locals, lose business.

 

[ifp]

The photographer was put in a situation where he can't win.

The government used his photo without permission (or even attribution, if I read correctly). This led to widespread usage (likely under the assumption that it was a government owned photograph).

So what's he supposed to do? He tried to settle it quietly, and was ignored. So he can either sit there, let it go and allow the government to continue to wrong photographers, or he can force the issue and be demonized.

Why are so many of you blaming the photographer? If the MoD had followed copyright law (and they really ought to know better), this would be a non-issue.

 

[sanj]

What am I missing here? What wrong has the photographer done?
By seeing the reaction of some of you, I must be wrong in my judgement here, just can't figure out where.

 

[Tinky]

Legally nothing. Morally, I would say it's in dubious taste to profiteer from a mans death like this, to the point where it affects how the young man can be remembered by his family.

I work professionally in video where things are different, in that I have no assumed future income from my video work other than for techncial processes (such as burning more dvd's, time taken for transferring data etc)

There should have been a clearer contract that the MOD owned the images from the start.

So the guy has done nothing wrong.

I have been in situations where participants in my video work have died, and I've been asked to put rushes or an extra copy of a film onto a DVD for the family. I've always done so in my own time, at my own cost.

Legally I would be entitled to say, well, thats my edit suite tied up for 0.1 of a working day and blank DVDs cost 30p, and a case, you know, well thats 20p, and don't even start me on the cost of padded envelopes and postage, and the post office, thats a good half a mile away, even if I go on the bike because its a nice day, thats a deductable expense etc..

Instead I take a quiet satisfaction that my recordings might be of some comfort at a difficult time. If I knew of unseen photographs of my grandparents, or if I could hear an audio recording of their voices, or see some video that had just been unearthed.. then that would be priceless to me, it would be too great to put a value on it, which sometimes means, it isn't really worth anything at all. Other than say gratitude. Or the hope that somebody else might treat you humanely or fairly in return at some point in the future.

Like I say. Nothing actually wrong with it.

And if the MOD had squared it with the photographer from day one (as they should from now on, as is legit within the copyright designs and patents act 2000.. 'we own it now and forever, you have no future rights, consider this, charge accordingly, and sign the contract, thank you) shared it to all channels then there would be no PA or getty or mirrorpix logos, inferring that somebody somewhere is turning a buck. Sometimes creative commons (is that the right phrase) or public interest comes into it.

 

[dhr90]

Legally the photographer may be in the right, maybe even considered to be doing well to stand up for photographers rights in yet another case of photographs being used without permission.

Morally however, in my opinion at any rate, he is very much in the wrong. The vast majority of the public will read this and see the words 'only £8,000' and be disgusted that he is trying to use this situation to his economic advantage.

It would be very interesting to know what he was either asking for, or rejected when they tried to settle out of courts, I suspect it would cause a lot more upset and ill feeling towards him from the general public.

Whilst the photographer in question may "win" his legal challenge, the bad publicity this generates with the general public at large will surely mean that in the long term he will lose out in business and earnings given how easy it is to google someone, and an article like this is bound to be near the top of the list. Would you use a photographer involved in something like this when there are plenty more out there after all?

 

[deleteme]

A perfect example of poor judgement by a photographer.
Yes, he is legally correct. However his handling of the situation has ensured that he will see no business from these quarters in the future.
He has undoubtedly learned the power of social media in a few short hours after the publication of the story.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Interesting discussion, but we all lack facts. Consider the following hearsay, but it does add another perspective to the topic... I came across comments on a British modeling forum that claims there has been extensive on-going discussion on the Army Photographers Facebook page. It states the photographer in question earns virtually all his income from doing in-house portraits and groups within London Army District. (That explains how he happened to have 8 different individuals photos involved.) The comment goes on to explain that all Army social and in-house PR photography is conducted on a full rights transfer to the client for security purposes. In this case the client was the Battalion PRI fund. The Unit 'owns' those images and all distribution rights, not the photographer. It further challenges whether the 8k he has made so far was illegal. The MoD declined to pay for the photo arguing the government already owned the rights. Clearly the photographer doesn't agree with that position.

I also notice that any current reproductions of the image carry the copyright symbol with the letters PA. No idea who PA is or how that relates to the rest of the discussion.

 

[NorbR]

The photographer was put in a situation where he can't win.

The government used his photo without permission (or even attribution, if I read correctly). This led to widespread usage (likely under the assumption that it was a government owned photograph).

So what's he supposed to do? He tried to settle it quietly, and was ignored. So he can either sit there, let it go and allow the government to continue to wrong photographers, or he can force the issue and be demonized.

Why are so many of you blaming the photographer? If the MoD had followed copyright law (and they really ought to know better), this would be a non-issue.

Yup, it does seem indeed that the MoD was at fault first, and the photographer ended up with two sucky choices in front of him. Still, he chose wrong.

Not just morally, although there's much to be said about it (yes, it is profiteering from someone's death, since he would not have seen any additional money without that death). Beyond that, the bad press he's going to get from this (deserved or not, but in any case, very predictable bad press) is going to cost him much more than whatever money he may get from legal proceedings in this case. Guess what's going to show up every time someone googles this guy's name in the future ...

Yes, it sucks getting bullied by a careless government agency, but in this case, the alternative will end up doing even more damage.

 

[Don Haines]

The photographer was put in a situation where he can't win.

The government used his photo without permission (or even attribution, if I read correctly). This led to widespread usage (likely under the assumption that it was a government owned photograph).

So what's he supposed to do? He tried to settle it quietly, and was ignored. So he can either sit there, let it go and allow the government to continue to wrong photographers, or he can force the issue and be demonized.

Why are so many of you blaming the photographer? If the MoD had followed copyright law (and they really ought to know better), this would be a non-issue.

One of the things that you have to understand about dealing with any government, is that getting money out of them is a long and arduous process. Even if everyone involved (government side) agreed that the photographer should be compensated, how should it be done? Who's budget does it come out of? Where is the paperwork trail? Where is the authorization? Where is the contract for the additional funds to be paid? What impact will paying out for this photo have on future cases and how will it affect current images and rights?

It is not a simple process and even if everyone was in complete agreement and it was marked as a priority, I can see the process taking years!

The lesson to be learned here is twofold.

First, learn from this and rewrite your contract. It will not help with the past, but you have to move on. If you want money out of the government for additional use of an image, you need a signed contract in place beforehand which states how much gets paid for future use of an image and it has to clearly state who that image belongs to.....

Second, think of publicity. The way it comes out now, the photographer is portrayed as a money grubbing parasite trying to profit on someone's death. This is BAD for your professional reputation. You are fighting for what is known as a pyrrhic victory.... that's where even if you win, it kills you..... a poor situation to be in. Sometimes you are best to let things drop and move on before more damage is done.

 

[Hardwire]

Legally nothing. Morally, I would say it's in dubious taste to profiteer from a mans death like this

So when any famous musician dies, using the same logic the rights owners (the music publishers) are wrong to re-release "Greatest hits" etc? Sadly in the commercial world a lot of profiteering happens on the back of tragedy.

This example the photog appeared to try and resolve the matter with the MOD and while he may/may not have offered licence for memorial use, his IP was still being used globally in a commercial situation. Should this be almost *any* other media from almost *any* other creative media the support would be swung a little more in favour of the artist (see recent events with Taylor Swift)...

So I think we need to cut the photog here in question a little slack as frankly this thread was started on the back of an article from the daily mail, and for those of you not from the UK this is a paper that alludes to be of a broad sheet standard and yet still has a slight racial right wing undertone to the editorial and its content is usually only as accurate as any given Wikipedia page.
(IE take the details with a pinch of salt)