NWB - Community Blog

17 Aug 2011

Copyright and Intellectual Property Ownership Infringments

Filed Under : Music , Rants

Posted By : Tubthumper | Comments : 18

What would you do to protect your rights?

So, as many of you know, I regularly attend others' gigs to photograph and record them. I then spend many many hours preparing edited highlight videos and cherry picking/editing photographs for the bands to use in whatever manner they see fit.

I'm a "not for profit" photographer in that I make no financial gain from these works whatsoever, however, as a Solicitor by profession I do still take the matter of my ownership of the media I produce, be that photos or video very seriously.

As a rule after I've completed works on a band's behalf I upload my finished photos and video to photobucket and youtube and then freely invite them to download the images/video as they wish and link to them in manner they see fit. I do this in the hope that my efforts are appreciated and that appropriate and commensurate recognition will be forthcoming and this has always been the case - the only recognition I speak of is a simple thank you in most cases - anything beyond that is a bonus and thrills me to bits.

I don't put copyright insignia on the pictures as I don't want to spoil them for the bands, though I can appreciate and respect why others do. The fact that I don't does not in any way detract from my rights over the pictures etc. There is no requirement at law that you put such a mark on your media to protect it.

Anyway, the long and the short of the matter is that someone for whom I regularly held free photo shoots and video's regularly has acquired a number of my copyrighted images which I only uploaded to my new media page on facebook yesterday. He has now published them to his personal facebook page and band page as though they are his own work ie in clear breach of my copyright ownership.

He has done this without my consent or approval. I was notified of this earlier today and promptly posted a polite but firm request on his band page to give me proper credit on the photos so as not to continue to pass them off as his own work. I have no continuing relationship with this person (his choice not mine) and I feel quite strongly that I ought to be afforded the courtesy of proper recognition of my work. This person has nothing good to say about me whatsoever yet is happy to seek the benefit of the fruits of my labour without any credit being given.

Now you may think I'm being unnecessarily churlish but please know that I'm more excited about my photograpahy and videoing than I am about music and have given of myself freely to a good number of bands off this site to the best of my abilities (and continue to hold a "waiting list" of people I've promised to "serve" as soon as both my and their gig lists permit.)

Consider yourself in my position if, for example you had created a piece of original music only to discover someone was passing it off (by not crediting you as composer) by posting it on their own web pages in such a manner as to lead others to believe that they had created it themselves.

Anyway, whilst I'm filling in claim forms for facebooks breach of copyright proceedings please let me know your opinions on the subject.

In the meantime, sorry to those I've arranged to film/photograph but I won't be able to uphold those commitments until this matter is resolved - and you have this very selfish individual to thank for that. It's left too bitter a taste for me to derive any enjoyment in continuing to do it just now. The only thing I've ever wanted is to be able to offer something back to the community, and to enjoy myself in the process - I've been robbed of that unless and until this person either gives me due credit on my work or removes my photos from his website.

Sorry for ranting and thanks all for reading.

Comments

# Posted by The Kasuals Solid Sixties Musi... - 18/08/2011, 00:19 (GMT)

Hi,

I am with you 100% on this one, I too am a keen photographer who like to photograph bands in action rather than a load of people all stood in a line.

A band who I know and are based nearby to where I reside also had photographs on their website that I had taken, over time I did ask them to remove my work as they had tried to do the dirty on my father. Almost 4yrs on I was checking out their website only to find a photograph that my father & myself have as a ®™ with the IPO.

I sent a friendly email to the guy in question asking him to remove it, a week passed and he didn't, I then found out through a mutual friend that he wasn't going to remove it not unless I went to the trouble of issuing a solictors letter. I decided to contact his webhosts legal dept, I gave them all proof of my ™, with 1 hr of emailing them they had taken his website off line and wouldn't put it back until the image was removed, it took him him almost 24hrs to have his website back on-line.

He has also been warned that any further infringements will result in his website being terminated.

Any work I do for others, I kindly ask that I be credited for my endevours on their respected websites/domains etc otherwise pound notes have to come my way.

All my photographs whether on my site, other websites I have built or even facebook are all © to me.

Get your just rewards,

Lee :)

# Posted by Crazy Train - 18/08/2011, 00:42 (GMT)

There can be no question that you have the right to have your work credited properly. 'All moral rights reserved' I think is the term. Have you spoke to them to make sure they are not just being 'thick'!

# Posted by John Wilkinson: - 18/08/2011, 09:08 (GMT)

Nicola.

Sorry to hear this. As you know I was trying to get a date where you could come and be our guest and take photos of Face Value on a suitable venue.

Sue the bugger would be my advice ;-)

Best wishes

John

# Posted by Alyerpal - 18/08/2011, 10:51 (GMT)

This is just not on Thumper.

You have done work for both of my bands and atleast one charity do I attended and I know how hard you work at what you do and how good the results are.

I have always made sure you got full credit for your work (even though you still won't accept any payment).

Whoever this, they should be ashamed of themselves - it doesn't take much to ask or say thankyou.

If this was a blog about a venue doing the 'dirty' on a band, the venue would have been 'named and shamed' and in the interest of all of us on here who have or want to benefit from your passion, perhaps you should do the same?

With your training, I'm sure you could come up with an appropriately worded letter......

:-(

AYP

# Posted by daz from THE EXTRAS - 18/08/2011, 10:58 (GMT)

hi Nicola,

disregarding any possible legal implications it is just bad manners,

if you have given up your time and skill to do this, i personally cant see why there is a problem for them to credit your work on the web site.

i can understand someone maybe not thinking and using the photos on the web site but once you have pointed out that you would at least like to have a credit mentioning your work it should be done staright away with a box chocs for good measure.

99 out of 100 members on this site would not give it a second thought and would have asked first and then gave you a mention it is just good manners but there is always one rotten apple in the bag.

hopefully this wont put you off for too long and i hope his site crashes .

kepp on rockin

Daz

# Posted by The Black Watch - 18/08/2011, 11:25 (GMT)

im afraid i dont really understand the question?

is anybody really gonna disagree with the points your making? if not then it just comes accross as kind of a backslapping, everyone jump onboard the legal battle, this is whats pissed me off this week blog.

i was under the impression this was a community blog. its not as if we really need to take anything away from this coz we dont know who it is thats fucked you over, nor do i care. im not calling for a naming and shaming!

i sincerely hope you get it resolved asap then you can get back to what you love doing but just cant be arsed with people airing their dirty laundry in public. in the meantime you can sleep soundly in the knowledge that yes we all agree with your point

# Posted by ST Photography - VIVA LA COMMU... - 18/08/2011, 13:05 (GMT)

I've spent the best part of the morning thinking about this one. Firstly, let me point out that I have nothing but respect for Nicola or anyone for that matter who is passionate about their work and shares their talent with the community to the benefit of the community. I've never met Nicola and although we have had some differences in the past it is all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned and I respect and enjoy her contribution to NWB as a musician, photographer and videographer.

Firstly, the question was "how would you protect your rights"? As a photographer myself, I took the decision to work on a 3 tier basis.

1. Raw images/video - the client is free to take duplicates of all raw images/footage to do with as they please.
2. Edited images/video - this is released with copyright watermarks to protect my interest and to make sure ST Photography is credited as appropropriate.
3. Further images- upon request, I will release copies of the edited images without watermarks for the client to enjoy.

I believe this is a sensible approach and has served me well thus far.

And so to the wider issue of copyright. Nicola is right that the lack of any express copyright warning does not mean that copyright does not apply. However, the UK copyright system makes it incredibly easy to apply copyright to all materials, so not to do so is (in my opinion) a pretty basic lack of judgement. With the best will in the world, sometimes things happen beyond your control and it is always best to protect your interests.

I'm reading bewteen the lines and I hope Nicola will correct me if I am wrong (I'm certain she will) but I think the bigger issue is the subsequent failing of the relationship between the two parties subsequent to the photos/videos having been taken. I certainly don't think we would be reading this blog if the two parties were still on good terms. Further to this, I have to ask myself would I publish photos of a client with which I had a relationship that is on pretty bad terms? The answer is no.

I completely agree that copyright should be respected and that the client should request permission and should certainly reference the photographer where appropriate, but I can't help but feel that more could have been done to protect the interests of the photographer here. Whether too trusting or simply naive (both suprising traits for a trained solicitor) it is always best to protect your interests especially where it is so simple to do so.

Finally, you should not let the actions of the minority affect your enthusiasm or passion. I know a lot of people speak highly of you and your work and it is to your credit that lots of NWB bands have enjoyed the tubthumper experience. I'm sure everyone will agree with me that you should get back out there amongst the community and focus on the positives.

In summary:
1. Copyright should be respected
2. Copyrighting material is easy
3. Always copyright your material. It can always be removed at a later date.
4. Onwards and upwards.

Asa
ST Photography
Supportive competition and advocate of community spirit

# Posted by The Kasuals Solid Sixties Musi... - 18/08/2011, 13:28 (GMT)

@ St,

Well said.............................

# Posted by James - Metalleeka - 18/08/2011, 15:00 (GMT)

Gutted for ya.. we have had several friends take photos of our gigs.. Andrew Wood - Marauder for one.. and I have a page on our site that lists the photographers.. whilst the photo's aren't individually accredited I hope this is enough.

I am gutted that you are no longer going to come to the Metalleeka @ Sanctuary this saturday as I think it would be a great experience for you and very beneficial to us.

I also know who the culprit is.. and it would come of no surprise to a few people on here if you were to name.. but until officially resolved it's probably best private...

# Posted by James - Metalleeka - 18/08/2011, 15:05 (GMT)

quick question (plays devils advocate)...

does the artist have any rights to "not" be photographed?? and then published.. i.e we are assuming you have asked to come and shoot the artist in action, and not just turned up?? is there a mutual agreement being overlooked?

# Posted by Tubthumper - 18/08/2011, 15:08 (GMT)

At AYP - you're right, I sought to conceal the identity of this person long enough to give him chance to take me up on my offer to put matters right but as he has thrown that back in my face I have no hesitation in telling all that the person I speak of is Dean Casement.

@ everyone (except Ben who has his own opinion and not one I share but each to their own), thanks for your feedback and support. Since the crux of the matter relates to artistic ownership it is not simply or merely a matter or "airing dirty linen in public". To say so exhibits a narrow minded and simplistic view of a more complex issue.

The question I suppose I was looking to have answered was - am I overreacting and have I been (as ST suggests) overly naiive in trying to simply give something back to the community? Am I letting subjective differences get in the way or should I pursue my rights? The fact of the matter is that I very politely asked Dean to acknowledge my copyright if he wished to continue to display my images. I would have done the same of anyone who had taken any photos from any of my media sources without asking me first, regardless of the status of my relationship with that person. To not seek permission morally is plain bad manners and, at law is theft, and speaks to the vacuous nature of the personality of any person who thinks anything in the public domain is simply theirs for the taking.

I have received no response to my request, and my request has now been deleted by him from his facebook page. I think this also speaks volumes - that having been given a perfectly reasonable "get out" he instead chooses to effectively perpetuate the conflict.

As to ST's comments about naivety etc - this was, I concede, one of my concerns, and one I was looking for feedback on, but having given it more thought I think that actually, no it isn't naivety, rather, it is altruism.

In the very spirit of ST's "Viva la Community" in fact....I have given of myself freely and asked only that fair acknowledgment of the source material be given. It would hardly be community spirited to then attach shackles etc to the material.

What disappoints me most is that the person is a "member" of this community. A magpie in the nest. Rightly or wrongly I'm not now minded to continue putting myself out (to the tune of hours and hours and some significant expense) when theft like this occurs unchecked. I will say that I am heartened by the constructive responses here and will no doubt pull my head of of my arse and return to doing what I love but not whilst it hangs so bitterly. In the meantime you can thank Dean Casement's stubbornness and arrogance for the fact that your films and photos aren't getting done for free....think of that next time you consider supporting one of his gigs or jam nights. Bitter and twisted much? Yes. Tell me honestly that you wouldn't be. Anyone that doens't like naming and shaming.....tough, it's turning a blind eye to this kind of malaise in society that allows it go unchecked.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

# Posted by Tubthumper - 18/08/2011, 15:10 (GMT)

@ James - you have no right to privacy so far as photos are concerned unless it encroaches on your right to privacy under the human rights act - when you (as a musician etc) perform in public to an uninvited audience you have no rights over your image. But as it happens the photo shoot was consensual at the time, not subject to any commercial agreement etc and so the only rights over the photos belong to me. But good point nontheless.

Edited to add - I think your crediting of the photographers on your page is a perfect example of how to properly give credit - no one expects a firework display of gratitude, but neither do I expect my photos to be taken and then displayed as though they are someone else's work.

# Posted by ST Photography - VIVA LA COMMU... - 18/08/2011, 15:42 (GMT)

@Tubthumper - I should point out that being naive and trusting is not a bad thing or a put down in any way shape or form from me. The fact remains that some people are not as community spirited as others and you can serve the community and still protect your own interests. I doubt anyone would think the worse of it. I hope it gets resolved but more importantly that you're out and about again soon.

@ James (Metalleeka) - There is such a thing as "model release" where a subject has to give consent to use of the photos but this applies mostly to commercial photography and/or where the photographer intends to use the pictures for commercial gain.

Asa

# Posted by Tubthumper - 18/08/2011, 16:04 (GMT)

@ ST - thanks for the clarification, I think I had taken it as a bit of a negative tbh

I realise I gave a sweeping overview of the "privacy" laws to James but the "model release" system isn't remotely applicable to photographing bands in pubs/clubs/outdoor events. Even "superstars" who do have property rights and commercial viability from their images have no rights over photos taken of them whilst, for example trotting up the red carpet at a premier. In the confines of a studio with a pro photographer all sorts of contractual considerations take over and the release does then become vital.

For the likes of us on this forum, whilst we are performing in public anyone can shoot us (photographically!) in any way they like and we have no control over it (beyond choosing not to continue the performance!). It is possible to arrange "no photography/filming" clauses (either orally or writing) with whoever booked you but its then up to them to ensure those rules are publicised and enforced. Interestingly when I filmed The Jackson Kay Band at Burnley Mechanics there were such signs all over and were ignored almost wholesale by people with cameras out all night (though I accept that the function was private and not policed by Mechanics staff so the concensus seemed to be that the rules didn't apply. In any event I had been invited to attend by the band for the express purpose of filming and photographing them for promo material.

# Posted by ST Photography - VIVA LA COMMU... - 18/08/2011, 16:40 (GMT)

@Tubthumper - Not a problem. Didn't want you thinking I was taking a swipe. Sounds like you've got enough on your plate! If only people realised the effort, time and expense that goes into producing photos and videos. I sometimes think that people underestimate our (photographers collectively inc. you, me, TremF and various others I can think of) contribution to the community. Hence you hear me banging on about cost vs value. And then I think of the fun I've had and the gratitude of those I've helped and everything is rosey in the garden again. Dust yourself off and get back out there.

# Posted by Tubthumper - 18/08/2011, 16:57 (GMT)

If someone stole my guitar whilst I was out in a public place with it (say on a stand on stage whilst I'm at the bar) would people be so dismissive of the issues? I don't think so, yet people think it's trivial. Like I said earlier, it wouldn't be quite so trivial I expect if a musician's original song had been taken.

Stealing intellectual property is no small matter and for that reason I'm going to be submitting reports to facebook asap I have ample proof of ownership and many screenshots of his facebook page have been given to me - the real kicker is that he has blocked me on facebook (no idea why, we never actually had a falling out!) so I assumed he wouldn't be able to have access to a page I had created within my facebook profile as my profile doesn't appear to him any more than his does to mine. Luckily I have some very good friends (who he believes are amongst his closest mates) who look out for me.

I will keep on taking photos and videoing - I love it too much to stop, but i may well change subject matter, or simply choose to charge for what I do - it just irks me that some people don't see the intrinsic importance of respecting other people's ownership and as a result of that the community loses a decent resource.

# Posted by Urban Valley Chickens - 21/08/2011, 12:35 (GMT)

Bands need sets, photographers need portfolios. In order for me to qualify as a photographer I needed something to point my lens at. Having taken thousands of shots of live performances, I wanted to do something different and offer a band a free studio shoot. Ends up, that I am now playing in that band. I discovered the hard way that there are those who appreciate the work that goes into photography and those who have no idea about the amount of editing time that can take place. For an average gig I can take around 500 to 600 shots per group, depending on the type of venue and what it has to offer in terms of lighting and vantage points. The result is a lot of editing, but that’s what I enjoy. I have spent a lot of time looking at how to get those images to clients without getting shafted. A popular mode of thinking, is to put the images on a USB stick. For those of you who are photographers, you will realise that this can present quite a few advantages in terms of copyright protection. This is also a good way of doing things if you do wedding photography.

1. CD’s have a limited capacity, but for some occasions I will use them
2. Web sites limit the quality and size of images.
3. Good quality images will always need the time to upload
4. The Print Screen key does not really deliver quality.
5. You can demand a deposit with USB sticks (such a simple thing that really does separate the sheep from the goats)

Good images sell business and mutual marketing is what gets photographers noticed, whether money changes hands or not. This works well with bands as well, and it’s why I do both. If someone does a gig with us, they can come out of it with professional shots (that includes the venue too). Yes, that is my business angle.

About Model Release Forms, it’s all about permission. In isolation they may not seem very important, but once money is involved that’s where they can cover your back. Try and take a professional picture of the London Eye without permission and sell it. That structure has a copyright. The same can apply to a venue. Has permission been granted. There is a big difference between shooting someone on a property or shooting them with a long lens whilst not actually being on that property. I view Model Release Forms as a part of a photographers protective armoury. Whether its bands or photography, cover your back because even close friends can drop you in the shit.

# Posted by Willow (of somebig™Fish) (Reti... - 21/08/2011, 12:43 (GMT)

blimey! am never takin me instamatic (with flash cubes) out again!!

:0)

You need to be Logged in | Registered to add a comment

Blog Search

Follow NWB on Facebook and Twitter

Help Support NWB - Find out how.

Shopping online? - Select your stores, enter search text, and click go!

Cottam Guitars

10% Discount for NWB members, email max@cottamguitars.co.uk

Bakehouse Studio

Accrington's cosy project studio. Book online 24/7. Use code NWB20bc110301 for NWB members special 20% discount.

Pinned Posts

Who's On?

Latest Comments

Hot Posts

Community Blog Guidelines

Be nice: Even if you disagree with someone, you need to keep your tone civil and reasonable.
Keep on topic: Please keep discussions relevant to each topic and avoid multiple topic posts.
Don't Spam: Show restraint with your posting frequency. We're all doing cool stuff on NWB, but if we post about it too much, it can be distracting.
Respect the Moderators: The entire Community Staff were users once, just like you. We try very hard to answer everyone's questions, so please be cool.