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



## Tinky (Jul 26, 2015)

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 (Jul 26, 2015)

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 (Jul 26, 2015)

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 (Jul 26, 2015)

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


----------



## kaswindell (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

kaswindell said:


> 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 (Jul 27, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> 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 (Jul 27, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > The photo was originally taken without anticipation of a significant future revenue stream.
> ...


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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

tolusina said:


> 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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

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 (Jul 27, 2015)

ifp said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 28, 2015)

ifp said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


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 (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> 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)


----------



## Tinky (Jul 28, 2015)

Hardwire said:


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



Here's a few reasons why your analogy doesn't stack up...

1. There would be a clear term in perpetuity contract for the published musicians works
2. The sales would be based on agreed prior usage, that the re ordings are exploited for commercial gain
3. The profits from the post humous greatest hits sales woukd go to the estate or family of the musician.

In this case the initial tights seem to have been bodged.
The image has acquired a worth through an unforeseen tragedy, the photographer coukdn't reasonably otherwise have expected £8k of additional revenue from a 'graduation' or 'passing out' image and so is no worse off, note that the mod did night attempt to monetise the image.
It reads like the photographer is after a pay day. 

i never said wrong, i said morally dubious. There is a distinction. And I know thats how the commercial world often works. But as a discussion point, Is that right? is that nice? Is it cynical? Do you have an opinion on it? None of us here are going to fix it, but as photographers we can opine on it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Here's a few reasons why your analogy doesn't stack up...
> 
> 1. There would be a clear term in perpetuity contract



Yes!

This is the heart of the matter. We have no idea what the contract between the photographer and MOD states. We have no idea if there is a fee to paid for subsequent usage of the image.... we don't know if the image was bought outright.... we don't know very much here, but we are trying both the photographer and MOD in public media without the facts. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.... odd are both sides are to blame, but we don't know.

What we do know is that very few people have a good grasp on copyright and intellectual property issues. Odds are that both parties are in the wrong and think they are in the right, and that makes for acrimony.


----------



## TeT (Jul 28, 2015)

There is always common practice to fall back on. Common practice can be argued all day long and 3 ways to Sunday.

Always much safer to have it cut and dried in black and white...


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky you are a gentleman. 

Edit:
But I do not blame the photographer.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2015)

By the way..... I know it is a different Government, but images that I shoot for the Government of Canada belong COMPLETELY. To the government of Canada.... I don't even have the right to put them in a portfolio or keep the file.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ... We have no idea what the contract between the photographer and MOD states. ...





Don Haines said:


> By the way..... I know it is a different Government, but images that I shoot for the Government of Canada belong COMPLETELY. To the government of Canada.... I don't even have the right to put them in a portfolio or keep the file.


Don, of course you are right that we're missing the facts.
I suppose it's even worse because we don't know about the family and their contract, too. 
I read the article like this:
The photog made pictures of the soldiers. Maybe without even beeing hired for it. The family maybe later just bought pictures from him. So no initial but secondary contract.
Then they gave the pic to the MoD without asking the photog and without knowing that they had to do this in first. So there would be no contract between MoD and photog at all.
Then he came up to them and claimed his rights and they just sent him away. And maybe he was just angry about the use of this pic by press without getting his fee for it. If that's the story I see no reason to accuse him at all.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 28, 2015)

This is just a media beat up. The government incorrectly posted the image. The photographer contacted them. The photographer and government failed to agree on terms to use the image. The photo was taken down and the families asked to supply an alternative photo. The wording used by the MOD to the families seems appropriate for the situation. 

I struggle to see why this is even newsworthy and can't help but feel that the newspaper is destroying the photographer's reputation unnecessarily.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 28, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I struggle to see why this is even newsworthy and can't help but feel that the newspaper is destroying the photographer's reputation unnecessarily.



When it comes to the Daily Mail, anything that they think might sell a few more copies would be deemed "necessary". It really is a bad source to base any kind of reasoned discussion on I'm afraid.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> 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 fail to see how anything this photographer does would affect how the family will be remembered by his family.

If the family's memory is affected by the use of the picture, I think that speaks more about the family than the photographer.

I wonder if the opinions about this story would change if the subject was not a murdered military member, but were about about someone else.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 28, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> When it comes to the Daily Mail, anything that they think might sell a few more copies would be deemed "necessary". It really is a bad source to base any kind of reasoned discussion on I'm afraid.


+1
Maybe it's some kind of comeback from the "Daily Mail" because they used his pic as well and he did contact them, too... :


----------



## Tinky (Jul 28, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Having the image of their loved one removed from the memorial as a result of the photographers law suit would probably have an effect, as was quoted in the article.

The family have been dignified throughout their whole ordeal, even stepping in to quell racist / islamaphobic rumblings when the right wing tried to capitalise on the murder. You have no place to malign them at all and to do so adds insult to their substantial injury.

On your second point, the story might be different if it was about somebody who had courted media attention and had done something notorious, but the fact is that it WAS concerning the issue of a MURDERED soldier (who wasn't engaged in conflict at the time, and so was essentially a civilian) I don't see the point in trying to twist it into something else.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 28, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to the Daily Mail, anything that they think might sell a few more copies would be deemed "necessary". It really is a bad source to base any kind of reasoned discussion on I'm afraid.
> ...



I'm no fan of the Daily Mail by any stretch of the imagination. I'm also not a fan of monetizing each and every possible situation. It's a photography story, which whether you like the Daily Mail or not, by dint of the substantial number of people who do, is in the public domain.

If you want to shoot the messenger go ahead, but you are missing the point.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > 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 agree with every word.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> On your second point, the story might be different if it was about somebody who had courted media attention and had done something notorious, but the fact is that it WAS concerning the issue of a MURDERED soldier (who wasn't engaged in conflict at the time, and so was essentially a civilian) I don't see the point in trying to twist it into something else.



My point is that if we are going to logically evaluate whether any party acted appropriately or inappropriately, I feel it is important to distance oneself from the emotional aspects of the case.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



You maligned the photographer! Everyone has a right to their opinion about the issue. Some of us are of the opinion that he is not wrong. Either of us could be wrong or right here...


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> If you want to shoot the messenger go ahead, but you are missing the point.


Hi Tinky!

I think I put my point quite clear in my posts before and that we do not have enough information about this issue to judge.

And the messenger (Daily Mail, Sun, German "Bild", etc.) in these case is no longer just a messenger because these kind of newspapers make money by producing smear campaigns and not delivering enough information to be called "objective and responsible" journalism.

And I hope that you will never come into any kind of situation where you have one of these newspapers against you, no matter what reason. Your life and your career will be ruined, and you can win any kind of lawsuit but you will not win your old life and your health back.

Media with such strengh have responsibilities, but they too often don't care about these anymore.
Is this "just a messenger"?


----------



## Tinky (Jul 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



I fail to see how the family can be treated as anything other than victims in this case.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 28, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > On your second point, the story might be different if it was about somebody who had courted media attention and had done something notorious, but the fact is that it WAS concerning the issue of a MURDERED soldier (who wasn't engaged in conflict at the time, and so was essentially a civilian) I don't see the point in trying to twist it into something else.
> ...



Perhaps I am not being emotionally detached enough. 15 years ago a close family friend was abducted, raped, murdered and then cut up and the parts dumped in the sea and around the West of Scotland.

His murderer has been a vexatious litigant from behind bars ever since, and every time one of his cases comes to court the story makes the TV and printed news, complete with a picture of the victim.

As hard as I know it is for the family to be confronted with this every few months, I don't see why anybody should make money from the portrait that is most often used of the victim.

Morally, which is of course different from legally, and contractually, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that somebody is profiteering from an image that was taken for a specific purpose by tragic circumstance.

Now I know that standpoint is full of holes. And I know that the Daily Mail is a bit of a rag. But as a human being with empathy, I can't help but form an emotional opinion on it.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 28, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I wonder if the opinions about this story would change if the subject was not a murdered military member, but were about about someone else.



But it isn't about someone else. It is about a murdered soldier. That is precisely the point. 

I'm absolutely with Tinky on this one. 

Any right-thinking person would have gladly allowed the use of the photographs. I don't think it would have been wrong for the photographer to have politely asked for a photo credit, but anything else is inappropriate in this case. Clearly, this photographer makes a living in part by selling photos to military men and their families. I suspect that this case is going to do far more damage to his business than if he had done the right and gracious thing in the first place. 

He may be within his legal rights, but there is more to life than protecting one's legal rights from every minor infraction.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



Now I understand your take on this much better. I don't agree with you, but respect your viewpoint and find you a concerned human being. Like.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> ...
> Perhaps I am not being emotionally detached enough.
> ...
> I don't see why anybody should make money from the portrait that is most often used of the victim.
> ...


I can fully feel and understand your point of view, Tinky. 
And by heart I can mostly agree to it. And it is never good to be emotionally detached. 
Because emotions make us human. 

But who is it, making most of money from the story spiced with the pic of the victim?
Maybe it should be very well defined by law that the family and relatives could prohibit the (re)use of pic of victims again and again. Even better in an opt-in way so they must be asked individually for permission.
But if newspapers earn money by using the pics I can also fully understand, that the right holders don't want to give the pics to them for free.


----------



## ifp (Jul 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> But it isn't about someone else. It is about a murdered soldier. That is precisely the point.
> 
> I'm absolutely with Tinky on this one.
> 
> ...



I never got the impression the photographer was after the MoD due to their use of the photograph in the memorial. I think his issue is with the lack of accreditation which led to subsequent losses when the photograph was picked up by others.

To those of you arguing about profiteering off of death, what do you think the media outlets are doing? Don't forget, they are businesses, not charities. And do you really think that the MoD doesn't profit off of their memorial? Not money, but goodwill. The exact thing that so many of you have noted that the photographer should have considered before he went public.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



Mostly agree with that.

Tinky, you said we missed the point but when it comes to newspapers like that you really do need to research any subject they report on. They are extremely adept at manipulating stories using selective quotes and picking facts that suit them to put particular slants on their stories. 

So we weren't missing any point just pointing out that whichever point of view you have on the matter a Daily Mail article is not a good basis to form a balanced opinion.

To be fair to you, under the circumstances you describe it would take almost superhuman powers to be fully objective about anything remotely similar I would imagine. And actually I do generally agree, that based on what's presented I don't think the photographer should be acting in the way that he is. problem is, I just don't trust what's presented because of the source.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 28, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> . And it is never good to be emotionally detached.



In my opinion, this is one of the defining attributes of a professional -- being able to emotionally detach oneself .

I have to do it in my professional life and I am sure many people here do it also. I hope that judges, doctors, and police, for example, are able to do it also. 

I would opine that there are many jobs where it is important to be emotionally detached. Probably more than there are jobs where it is important to be emotionally attached.


----------



## helpful (Jul 28, 2015)

The facts are:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Soldiers served and fought for their country, doing what the government told them to do.
[*]A former soldier is now serving his country in another way, as a photographer who works extremely hard and in good faith taking pictures of the younger soldiers who have now taken on the role of fighting for their country.
[*]Some of these younger soldiers paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country
[*]However, the government is unwilling to pay to remember them, but is perfectly happy to steal the images from the former soldier, now photographer, who also served his country by taking the pictures.
[/list]


In my view, the fact that the photographer had no way of knowing the images would become so valuable is actually an enormous point in his favor.

It certainly does NOT mean that he cannot charge what they are now worth.

Rather, it proves that he was taking the images in service of his country and doing so in good faith. But the photographer's own country is betraying him as a former soldier who now takes pictures for the younger soldiers of his country. And most of all the other soldiers' own country is betraying them by being willing to steal but not to pay for what they deserve in recognition of their service.

This is the same as if a widow had created a memorial garden for her husband and all the soldiers her husband fought with, and then the government seized it by imminent domain to make it into a national memorial.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 28, 2015)

I'm not a professional photographer so my understanding may be incorrect. But doesn't the photographer need the soldiers permission to use his image (the soldiers) commercially?
I understand that the photographer has copyright of the picture, but does he have the commercial rights to the picture.

I can go outside and take a picture of you. I will own the copyright to that picture, but I don't have the right to exploit your image commercially. I can't for example make a book or a calendar and sell your image without your permission. There are some exceptions to this that allow newspapers and others to post your image.

Nothing in the information that I have seen suggests that the photographer has the commercial rights to the picture. I sincerely doubt that the MOD would have objected to putting a credit to the photographer on their website if that was all he was asking. I may be wrong but the 8000 pounds suggest he was asking for money. Really need to see the contract to know who is in the wrong.

Sometimes a photograph may gain value because of who is in the picture. Lee Friedlander's pictures of Madonna are a very good example(iirc a 100,000 dollar example) . He had used her as a model before she became famous and I assume he had a properly filled out model release as I don't remember any lawsuits. 

In this case it is not clear that the photographer even had a contract with the soldier. It could have been just like when you were in high school and they took pictures for the year book. You lined up had and your picture taken, expecting to see it in the year book, the photographer then sent around a sample and asked if you wanted copies for yourself. There were no contracts that gave the photographer commercial rights to the photograph. If the photographer kept copies he would have no right to use them commercially, if you then went on to become famous. 
Similarly if the photographer took a super duper photograph of you, you didn't have the right to use that photograph for commercial purposes. unless you got agreement from the photographer. 

So unless the photographer has a release from the soldier, I think the family has a claim on some or even all of the 8000 pounds. 

I really doubt that the photographer has a release as he was paid to take the picture. He didn't pay the soldier to model for the picture. I think the most he was due was a photo credit to recognize that he held the copyright on the picture. 

That's my take the story.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 28, 2015)

My take is he got paid to take the photographs by a client. They are the clients images. A bit of luck for the photographer, the image becomes sought after because of a subsequent event. The prospect of an extra pay day maybe makes the photographer forget what the 'decent' thing to do is.

I don't think the photographer meant for Lee Rigbys family to be upset, but with the live case against them I don't think the MoD really had any choice. Actions have consequences, and sometimes the legally correct thing isn't the socially correct thing.

And to pick up an earlier point, in my working life I am entirely professional. I do photography more as a hobby than anything else. 

Here's a scenario... if your kid went missing and the best most up to date photograph of your kid was a school portrait, would you expect the photographer to have their hand out when you asked for a copy for the milk carton?


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 28, 2015)

jthomson said:


> I'm not a professional photographer so my understanding may be incorrect. But doesn't the photographer need the soldiers permission to use his image (the soldiers) commercially?
> I understand that the photographer has copyright of the picture, but does he have the commercial rights to the picture.
> 
> I can go outside and take a picture of you. I will own the copyright to that picture, but I don't have the right to exploit your image commercially. I can't for example make a book or a calendar and sell your image without your permission. There are some exceptions to this that allow newspapers and others to post your image.
> ...



I think you're kinda missing the point... Yes, he has copyright to the photos and he can use the photos as he so pleases. He has every right to use the photos commercially if he so pleases. NOW... if the client refuses to sign a copyright release, they have every right to seek compensation from the photographer for using said images, and also in some instances, the client/model can request that the photographer NOT use their images for commercial use, but the photographer has EVERY right to use them commercially or not. Also, the family gave the photo without notifying the photographer to the MOD and THEY distributed this photo without contacting the photographer. THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES... Now legally the photographer has every right to seek compensation... is it tacky as hell given the situation, yes it is. BUT, i'm sure, as a professional photographer myself, if the MoD were wiling to give him attribution, he would think it's the cats meow to have his photo splashed all over the world... BUT, since they aren't willing to work with him, here is the problem. 99% of photographers do not give their copyrights to portrait clients... ever. They may give them print rights... but distribution is different. This is the problem with this story.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> My take is he got paid to take the photographs by a client. They are the clients images. A bit of luck for the photographer, the image becomes sought after because of a subsequent event. The prospect of an extra pay day maybe makes the photographer forget what the 'decent' thing to do is.
> 
> I don't think the photographer meant for Lee Rigbys family to be upset, but with the live case against them I don't think the MoD really had any choice. Actions have consequences, and sometimes the legally correct thing isn't the socially correct thing.
> 
> ...



There's a difference for photos for personal use, and photos for commercial use. As i've said, and the story has said, the MoD posted his photos without even the slightest curtsey of attribution... This is where the problem lies with this story. If his client was the MoD, then by all means, he likely gives limited rights to the MoD to do as they please with the photos... Personal Use photos, which these were according to the article, are for that, personal use. Then again, as he is a professional photographer, he most likely has a written contract/terms and use and liability stating what they can and cant do... This is likely included in these forms.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 29, 2015)

awinphoto said:


> I think you're kinda missing the point... Yes, he has copyright to the photos and he can use the photos as he so pleases. He has every right to use the photos commercially if he so pleases.


Why does anyone ever need a model release if that is the case?
As I said I can take your picture on the street. As the photographer I would have the copy right to that picture. I would not have the right to sell that picture to coca - cola for use in an massive advertising campaign. Coca - cola would demand a model release before they paid for and used the picture.

This is also complicated by different copyright laws in different countries.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 29, 2015)

Freelancers should note that even if you own the copyright to the photographs you took for a commissioned work, you cannot freely give or sell those prints or negatives to a newspaper where the subject later come into public light. Doing so may violate duty of confidentiality, privacy, or other legal obligations and customers could sue to stop your action and recover monetary damages. Also, the photographer could not have licenced advertisers use the photorgraphs to endorse a product. Customers could sue both the photographer and the advertiser.

This is an interpretation of canadian copyright law mostly as applied to the province of ontario. It basically agrees with what I have been saying. Which is a good thing as that's where I live. I think most of canada ' s provinces are similar. Quebec may be slightly different as they don't follow common law for civil cases. .


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 30, 2015)

jthomson said:


> So unless the photographer has a release from the soldier, I think the family has a claim on some or even all of the 8000 pounds.


You're probably right. Also, the UK government probably has a number of ways to defend their actions and continue using the photo. (Assuming the UK government is even subject to copyright rules). Given that these topics weren't raised, I just assume that none of the parties really wants to make this a bigger problem than it currently is.

FWIW, I'm just listening to a Podcast on the Authors Guild vs Google case and the court's view on the copyright arguments raised. Now I'm just wondering when Google will start saving, cataloguing and displaying all of the photos that we all store online (if they haven't started already). With the right software behind it, from an anthropological perspective, I can think of a lot of fascinating uses for a searchable depository of everyone's photos and they'd have a very good fair use argument to support their actions. And as the authors are finding, there won't be much you can do about it.


----------



## ifp (Jul 30, 2015)

jthomson said:


> So unless the photographer has a release from the soldier, I think the family has a claim on some or even all of the 8000 pounds.



(Using the same arguments already put forth) But then the family would be profiting off of his death, and wouldn't that make them even scummier than the photographer?

Also, the family already seemingly gave permission to the MoD. Perhaps they have some rights to any money the photographer can recover from news outlets, but that's well beyond my understanding of any country's copyright law.

In the end, the solicitors/lawyers are the only winners here...


----------



## jthomson (Jul 30, 2015)

ifp said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > So unless the photographer has a release from the soldier, I think the family has a claim on some or even all of the 8000 pounds.
> ...



I have seen nothing indicating that the family has made any attempt to make money off this situation. 
The only money mentioned is the 8000 pounds the photographer claims to have already made. 
While I think the photographer deserves a photocredit (which the MoD did not provide) for any use of his copyrighted work, I also think that the photographer is a ( insert your favourite insult here) for trying to get money from anyone. 
It might have been really classy, if the photographer actually does have a release, for him to be collecting fee's and donating them to some charity, but that's not the story. He could even get a tax break for the charitable donation, and I would have no objection. He would make a bit of money by saving on taxes, get some great publicity, and I'm sure the family wouldn't have objected.

I'm still curious if copyright practice is the same or different in the UK than here in Canada.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 31, 2015)

You guys need to watch the copyright zone video on the B&H channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRvXB0d3dw

As this incident is taking place in the US these would be the laws and interpretations to be considered.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 31, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> You guys need to watch the copyright zone video on the B&H channel:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRvXB0d3dw
> 
> As this incident is taking place in the US these would be the laws and interpretations to be considered.



No, the incident took place and played out in the UK, the family, victim and photographer, as well as the MOD are all in the UK.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 31, 2015)

I dropped out of this discussion long ago as it was obvious all of us had emotional opinions but none of us had the facts necessary.

A more recent news story adds some dimension to the issue: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/lee-rigby-picture-row-not-40866/

Still not enough facts to resolve anything; but clearly the photographer is doing "damage control" with statements like "it's not about the money" and "a portion is going to charity." Much different from the prior claim "I have a right to make a living."

The photographer states MoD did have the rights to post the photo on its memorial website. His concern is its distribution for commercial purposes. Whether the MoD sent the photo out as part of a press release or it was just appropriated from their website (since it was pposted with no attribution attached) is unclear. 

Recent copies of the original image are now running with a copyright symbol and the letters "PA." No explanation for that in the story.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > You guys need to watch the copyright zone video on the B&H channel:
> ...



Still very interesting. I note that they say it varies from state to state even though all cases are tried in federal court. It also made it very clear that owning the copyright doesn't give you the right to use the picture in any way. Even with a release there are still limits on how you can use the picture, the HIV ad was a very interesting example. 

There are obviously nuances, but it appear US and Canadian law is similar. Can anyone comment on how it works in the UK?


----------



## jthomson (Jul 31, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> I dropped out of this discussion long ago as it was obvious all of us had emotional opinions but none of us had the facts necessary.
> 
> A more recent news story adds some dimension to the issue: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/lee-rigby-picture-row-not-40866/
> 
> ...



Yes, I came late to this thread. But thanks for the update. Damage control indeed. 
I am curious to see if we ever hear any of the details.
In the B&H video the lawyer made the point that 98 or 99% of cases are settled and the details are never known.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > You guys need to watch the copyright zone video on the B&H channel:
> ...


Apologies, I didn't read the details of the story and incorrectly assumed US. This thread had so many assumptions and value judgements that I grew annoyed and just posted something which is at least presented by Copyright lawyers.

Although specifics can vary from country to country, there are many common principles which apply in most western countries regarding copyright law, so the CopyrightZone video is a very good introduction to the subject. Of course every photographer who takes their work seriously should get to grips with the laws applicable in their country and not assume what should or shouldn't be done by how it feels.


----------

