When your photos are just too good.

I don't no what the law is in the UK.

I do, which is why, assuming he is in the UK, I was questioning Bruce's
knowledge of UK copyright, as it appeared to predate our 1988 act. As
you say he would own his copyright in North America.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:30:39 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

Apparently this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aps--GOOD.html
is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to a
previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them couldn't
possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I think it's an
interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a black background.
That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate on the body but it
must have made exposure a real challenge.

As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Boots recently bought out our local pharmacy. Fortunately they kept on
the current staff rather than replace them with the usual clueless
eejits. They have an automated printer for enprint-size work. For
anything bigger they refer you to the printer across the street.

For a while they kept a lot of things "under the counter" for regular
customers until they were found out and made to stop restocking them.

I went in a Boots once and asked for some only slightly esoteric
product for my wife. Instead of saying they didn't stock it (true)
they claimed it had been taken off the market. So I went to a real
Pharmacy who had shelves of it.

I went in another Boots once for a specific battery. They told me they
didn't have any. I left through a different door than I came in and
passed a whole rack of batteries including the one I asked for.

They almost make Dixons look intelligent

On 10-04-05 13:56 , spacecadet wrote:


I don't no what the law is in the UK.

Did I actually write "no" for know. sigh


I do, which is why, assuming he is in the UK, I was questioning Bruce's
knowledge of UK copyright, as it appeared to predate our 1988 act. As
you say he would own his copyright in North America.

And no he would not "own his copyright in North America" as the law is
different in Canada and the US - as I pointed out in my previous post.
I have no idea what it is for Mexico.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:38:47 +0100, wrote:

And verily, didst spacecadet hastily babble
thusly:
Are you sure you're aware of the provisions of the 1988 Act? The
photographer DOES own the copyright. The commissioner of social
photography merely has the right not to have it published without his
permission. That was the big change.
You appear to be giving away something which belongs to you.

The photographer owns the copyright UNTIL he hands over said copyright to
anyone else. If the OP chooses to give the copyright to the photographs to
the commissioner, that's up to him and him alone.


In the absence of a written contract, English law grants the copyright
to the photographer. But a contract can be written to say whatever
the parties want.

The reasons for my choice to grant copyright of social images to the
people who commissioned me are simple. First, it is a strong selling
point, because customers don't like to be tied to using the
photographer as the sole source of (usually expensive) reprints.
Second, it relieves me of any responsibility to preserve the image
files in perpetuity in the faint hope of some lucrative re-orders for
prints that usually aren't worth the hassle.

So basically my approach enables me to charge more while at the same
time costing me less. The customer gets full ownership of the images
and avoids being tied to me as the sole source of reprints. Win/win.

Having said that, several customers who have been dissatisfied with
the quality of reprints from elsewhere have come back to me to have
them done. Win/win/win. ;-)



Obviously, you will run your business in the way that you want. And your
position was have some validity.
But here's my problem: Suppose the customer takes the files (or in my case
negatives) to a slipshod lab and gets bad prints. How do they know that it's
the lab's fault and not yours? Suppose they show those poor quality prints
to friends who also think that the problem is due to your original files?

I tell my customers that I hold the negatives and make the prints because I
want them to have the best quality images possible, and the only way to do
that is if I control the process from camera to framed image. (All of my
portraits leave here in frames, ready to hang. BTW, the little metal hanger
on the back is screwed on, not nailed.)

Again what works for you is your choice. But my customers are willing to pay
a premium price for quality framed images ready to hang. And if I have to,
for a bit more money, I'll go to their home and drive a nail in the wall for
them!

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-05 13:56 , spacecadet wrote:


I don't no what the law is in the UK.

Did I actually write "no" for know. sigh

We knew it was a typo, Alan.......