Page 1 of 2
A note about a gallery...
Posted: 19/09/2004 - 23:48
by madfiddler
[EDIT: this topic given its own thread]
Note.. if you want to use the photos, or want copies of the photos on...
http://www.honig-bienchen.de/backintime2004/bit2004.htm
EVEN if you were a performer doing it for free... you have to pay... Sure £20... but it's the principle of it...
GGRRRRRR
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 0:35
by Matrix
Some1's takin the piss right here....
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 0:39
by madfiddler
I can understand the guy wanting to sell the pics to magazines etc... but considering we did the gig for free, paid our own travelling expenses etc then yes, I think it is.
Got a good mind to ask him to remove all pics with me in them...
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 0:45
by Matrix
You do have that right ... he cant make money from your image if you expressly forbid it in writing. I bloody well would for sure.... nobody makes money from my back....
And if they do - I want MY bit from it.
Actually chris "could" sanction photos from the whole event - its been done b4 - remember that rigmorole with NOW magazine and the Beckhams ?
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 0:58
by madfiddler
Yes it is true.
If an image of yourself is on a website, which you do not wish, you can request to have it removed and if the site owner refuses, you can take him to court.
I've now requested that the images be removed.
Sad isn't it... but there we go... I've been shafted up the rear end too many times now...
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 1:14
by Matrix
The plain cheek of it is the thing though as mark says.... pay for your own image... screw that ! I mean fair enough if print post and packing are involved, but not digital. While its true they took the pic, if they sell that pic after you have asked then not to - youre also entitled to money from any subsequent sales of your image from that photo.
Mark would be well within his rights to ask the photographer to send him royalties for sales or remove said pics (meaning "you cannot legally sell these").
Uk law says your image is your brand..
I could call myself Microsoft and get a cease n decist order plus id have to hand over to them any money i made trading under that name, indeed thius has already happened with "Mike Rowe Software" earlier in the year. Its breach of copyright & trademark infringement.
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 1:23
by Matrix
Yeah but the pics wernt taken in sweden m8 - that means it falls under british law
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 1:25
by madfiddler
and I wasn't posing.. god forbid.. you've seen the posing photo... and that involves getting my stomach out
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 1:26
by Matrix
Ah yes, thats an image ill keep for blackmail in a few years time
*Cough* lol ...
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 11:55
by merman
The guy is a professional photographer after all, and paid his own expenses for getting there... (not that I condone getting rich off the performers' backs)
Posted: 20/09/2004 - 12:05
by Chris Abbott
I like Patrick, the guy concerned, but:
> The guy is a professional photographer after all, and paid his
> own expenses for getting there...
1) Um, I didn't ask him to come to be some kind of official photographer. I'm glad he supported the event, but I didn't think there was going to be commercial exploitation of the pictures. I let him take pictures the same as I let anyone else take pictures. There was no implied right to be able to use the pictures commercially without clearing it with the performers concerned.
2) In the interests of fairness, I'd like to point out that he did offer Mark to have the lo-res photos on the website free. The usage fee was supposed to be for the high res versions for commercial usage. Personally I still think that it's not entirely wise to ask the subject of the picture (who you need the legal permission of to sell) to pay for usage of a picture.
Don't you think we're cluttering up this previously nice clean thread a bit? I might have to move this discussion to another thread. If I can!
Chris