Do you sell electronic photos?

[lilchief 1]

I'd like to read that article!

Here in Norway there are laws to protect the person on the picture and the one taking it. No-one can use a picture unless the photographer and the person in it approves it. If only one approves the publication, it won't hit the media/web(in theory).

I'm currently in a beef with a small local newspaper that asked for 3 of my photo's and I sendt them fullsize with the costs of using them. That's two months ago, and I've still haven't heard anything from them. Since they don't have my written permission to use them, which they did, I may press charges on them....which I've done. I won't send anything tot hte media in full size until a price is set.

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

Here in Norway there are laws to protect the person on the picture and the one taking it. No-one can use a picture unless the photographer and the person in it approves it. If only one approves the publication, it won't hit the media/web(in theory).

We have the same theoretical laws in the U.S. for commercial use, but the subject of the photo does not need to grant permission it if it is for news purposes. But I am less worried about publications than I am about Joe Blow Jumper who asks to buy an image, and then prints copies for his pals, or somehow lets the file out into the general domain.

[LouDiamond 1]

Photo calculator

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[lilchief 1]

Thanks Lou! That was a really good link!

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

We have the same theoretical laws in the U.S. for commercial use, but the subject of the photo does not need to grant permission it if it is for news purposes.

Mostly. What he was talking about in Norway (I think) is a thing called "moral rights". The Berne Copyright Convention provides: "Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation."

It deals with the following situation: I take a pretty picture. I'm the initial copyright holder. of it. I assign (not just license) the copyright to the pretty picture. All things being equal, the new owner of the copyright would have exclusive rights to make derivative works (in other words modify) the picture. If I'm in a moral rights jurisdiction, I can object to that modification. Moral rights (in most of the jurisdictions that recognize them) aren't assignable or waiveable. So I retain the right even after I've sold it. (I am oversimplifying it a bit here, but that's the general jist.)

It's different if I license a picture for use in a magazine, for example. There, I can put limits on what the magazine does pursuant to the license (though in practice, a lot of people don't).

The US doesn't recognize moral rights in the way Berne does...

But the short answer is you can get to the same result in the US, just by different means.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Laszloimage 0]

Thanks for the great link Scott!
I normally use GettyImages for calculations (...it's also a "Big Name" reference) but your link is definitelly very easy and fast to use.
-Laszlo-

[DSE 5]

Quote

The US doesn't recognize moral rights in the way Berne does...

Jeff, you're the attorney, but if I interpret Berne correctly (of which the US is a signatory) it's not that we don't recognize, but rather don't allow Berne to supercede our own existing laws and rights where applicable?
It seems that every country is able to pick n' choose which parts of TEACH, Berne, DCMA, UCITA we want to observe/enforce?
Or am I just missing the boat on this one?

[Skwrl 56]

I was short handing it a little bit, and I shouldn't have.

Also: a disclaimer (you know this, Spot, but others don't): I'm not a copyright lawyer. I do licensing work, but mostly in the biotech patent world.

But here's my understanding:

When the US signed Berne, it took the position that other, existing laws (like the Visual Artist Rights Act) addressed the moral rights requirement of Berne. VARA limits the modifications that "distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation", like Berne requires.

Two catches.

First, what's "prejudicial to the honor" is more narrowly defined in the US (at least based on US case law) than elsewhere...

Second, you can't assign (sell) VARA rights, but you can agree to waive them. If I were a magazine or newspaper, I'd want to have you waive your rights under VARA as part of the license/copyright assignment (although I've read a bunch of assignments that don't do that specifically).

In a bunch of the civil law countries in Europe (mainland Europe, not the UK or Ireland), you can't even waive them. So that's why I said the US deals with them differently - you can waive here, but not there. The net result is that when you send in something for publication in the US, you probably might have to sign something that releases these rights... In civil law Europe, you can't (and even if you tried to, it would be ineffective).

At least that's how I understand it.

Also, FWIW, VARA only applies to visual art, so music and other copyrightable works aren't subject to an equivalent provision, as far as I know.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork