As you become more technically skilled and artistically developed as a photographer, the thought may occur to you one day: “Hey, maybe I can make some money at this!” And indeed, maybe you can. We live in a rich visual environment, and every photograph you see on TV, in a magazine or book or on the web was taken by somebody. The huge appetite for good photography is certainly there, but the other side of the coin is that the number of people trying to sell photography has also exploded.
One of the basic issues you will encounter if you try to sell your work is around copyright and permissions. As an amateur who takes pictures for your own enjoyment, you can generally take a picture of anything in a public place with few legal restrictions. The minute you put a price tag on your photo, your world changes. This applies to photographs of people as well as objects.
With people, one can see the reasoning behind it - it’s a matter of personal privacy. Often people are delighted to see their picture appear somewhere, but consider this scenario. Suppose a manufacturer creates a magazine ad with a photo of your friends laughing to show how much fun using the product can be. But suppose that your friends happen to be dead set against this product - maybe they are animal rights activists and the company uses animals for testing their products, or maybe they are against child labour and the company’s products are made in third-world sweat shops. There can be any number of reasons why you or any other person might resent the use of their image paired with a product - or in any other context that you haven’t agreed to.
Now suppose that you were the photographer that sold the photo to the manufacturer. At the very least, you’ll be on the outs with your friends. The company may be threatened with a lawsuit. Eventually, it will come back to you. The creative director that bought the photo from you might pointedly ask, “The contract says we only buy people pictures if there are signed model releases - where are your releases?” Then it dawns on you. You read the bit about model releases, and you thought, “They’re my friends. If I’m lucky enough to sell the photo, I can ask them later.” But of course, they are now your ex-friends, and you are left dangling in legal limbo.
In reality, this is unlikely to happen because agencies that buy photographs will make sure that all the legal work is complete. Another reason is that product photos are mostly staged, and all the people in them are paid actors. However, your photo might be purchased to use as a general illustration, and if there are people in it, it is generally good practice to ask them to sign a model release.
Photojournalism is a special case. If you sell a photo to a newspaper, you generally do not need permission if it’s a breaking news event. For photo features where there is more time, the rules and procedures will vary with the publication. I know a staff photographer for a newspaper that will introduce himself and ask the subject for permission as a matter of courtesy.
With objects and landmarks, you might think you are free from legal restrictions, but try to sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night and you’ll run into another legal issue. There is a copyright on the lighting effects that illuminate the tower at night, so you need to negotiate with the copyright holder before you can sell your photo.
Looking at it from the point of view of the photographer, you own the copyright to your photo, generally speaking. In Canada, the issue of intellectual property ownership is a bit cloudy when it comes to photography, and there are some situations such as “work for hire” contracts where the person that hired you to take the photos owns the copyright, not you. A bill to amend the Canadian Copyright Act was introduced in the last Parliament, but died when the session was dissolved.
In the spirit of sharing, and to circumvent some unevenness in copyright laws from country to country, people who participate in the Creative Commons are saying, in essence, “This is my photograph, but if you want to use it (usually for personal, non-commercial situations), you have my permission.” That’s an over-simplification, so if you are interested in Creative Commons, go to a site like Flickr where you’ll find detailed information.
One of the basic issues you will encounter if you try to sell your work is around copyright and permissions. As an amateur who takes pictures for your own enjoyment, you can generally take a picture of anything in a public place with few legal restrictions. The minute you put a price tag on your photo, your world changes. This applies to photographs of people as well as objects.
With people, one can see the reasoning behind it - it’s a matter of personal privacy. Often people are delighted to see their picture appear somewhere, but consider this scenario. Suppose a manufacturer creates a magazine ad with a photo of your friends laughing to show how much fun using the product can be. But suppose that your friends happen to be dead set against this product - maybe they are animal rights activists and the company uses animals for testing their products, or maybe they are against child labour and the company’s products are made in third-world sweat shops. There can be any number of reasons why you or any other person might resent the use of their image paired with a product - or in any other context that you haven’t agreed to.
Now suppose that you were the photographer that sold the photo to the manufacturer. At the very least, you’ll be on the outs with your friends. The company may be threatened with a lawsuit. Eventually, it will come back to you. The creative director that bought the photo from you might pointedly ask, “The contract says we only buy people pictures if there are signed model releases - where are your releases?” Then it dawns on you. You read the bit about model releases, and you thought, “They’re my friends. If I’m lucky enough to sell the photo, I can ask them later.” But of course, they are now your ex-friends, and you are left dangling in legal limbo.
In reality, this is unlikely to happen because agencies that buy photographs will make sure that all the legal work is complete. Another reason is that product photos are mostly staged, and all the people in them are paid actors. However, your photo might be purchased to use as a general illustration, and if there are people in it, it is generally good practice to ask them to sign a model release.
Photojournalism is a special case. If you sell a photo to a newspaper, you generally do not need permission if it’s a breaking news event. For photo features where there is more time, the rules and procedures will vary with the publication. I know a staff photographer for a newspaper that will introduce himself and ask the subject for permission as a matter of courtesy.
With objects and landmarks, you might think you are free from legal restrictions, but try to sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night and you’ll run into another legal issue. There is a copyright on the lighting effects that illuminate the tower at night, so you need to negotiate with the copyright holder before you can sell your photo.
Looking at it from the point of view of the photographer, you own the copyright to your photo, generally speaking. In Canada, the issue of intellectual property ownership is a bit cloudy when it comes to photography, and there are some situations such as “work for hire” contracts where the person that hired you to take the photos owns the copyright, not you. A bill to amend the Canadian Copyright Act was introduced in the last Parliament, but died when the session was dissolved.
In the spirit of sharing, and to circumvent some unevenness in copyright laws from country to country, people who participate in the Creative Commons are saying, in essence, “This is my photograph, but if you want to use it (usually for personal, non-commercial situations), you have my permission.” That’s an over-simplification, so if you are interested in Creative Commons, go to a site like Flickr where you’ll find detailed information.
No comments:
Post a Comment