How is it that the model involved in a shoot does’nt deserve to share the copyright or at least get a fair shake, if she uses a non commercial shoot of her image to promote herself?

Does she deserve at least the “Fair Use” protection under the law? Why is the photographer the only person credited to be the Creator of such a Work?

UK Law
Criticism, review and news reporting
(1)
Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(2)
Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(3)
No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.

In the UK you cannot use news photographs for free under Fair Dealing provisions.

Bob Croxford

I’ve issued a number of take down notices to the above type of sites. I don’t mind some one using my images on their personal blog but not if its rich in Google Ads.

Just because something is on the Internet, does NOT make it “in the public domain”!!!

This seems to be a bizarre assumption that a lot of people make; at least this is an argument I see all the time justifying the improper use of other people’s photographs.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

the effect…is that no one wants to pay for work seen online…

fast forward several years.

online is the major media outlet.

tell me you don’t see this coming?

cheers Rob

http://www.takemyphotograph.com

@M.Scott
Unfortunately it’s a very easy task to strip off images (and any content as well) even with flash sites … so, don’t think you are safe

best, Reini

“Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and;

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

I make no money off the blog; I use it for purposes of education & criticism, etc.; I never use more than one (or maybe a couple) of images from any photographer’s work (and of course what counts as a work? the series, the photo essay, the individual image?);
and I seriously doubt that anything I show or say on the blog (insightful as my comments always are) will have any effect on the value of the work; to the contrary, I suspect, more chatter can only help most photographers, for whom the basic problem is not that too many folks are noticing their work.

I always try to link directly to the maker’s web site (or sometimes to their gallery representation). Sometimes that is not possible because there is no such page. I always attribute copyright to the photographer. And, often I email the photographer and tell them I’ve posted on their work.

All of that said, the first step in any complaint about such issues is a ‘cease & desist’ letter from a lawyer. Were I ever to receive such a letter, I’d simply take the offending image down. The case is then moot. (Although I’d also likely post on having received the letter.) I’ve been keeping the blog for several years and get what to me seems like a ridiculous number of visitors. I’ve never gotten a complaint from a photographer. I have gotten multiple emails thanking me.

For idiosyncratic reasons I wrote a longish post on this topic last spring. You can find it here:

http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/2008/04/
amy-alkon-christopher-harris-redux.html

Best, Jim Johnson

A couple key points:

1. Screenshots exclude metadata such as copyright notice and creator contact information which could potentially make the images into an Orphan Work. I suppose screenshots of an entire web page are fine, otherwise I’d much rather you download from my site so you can include my metadata.

2. To be considered Fair Use, the commentary or must be about the photograph itself NOT about the subject of the photograph. In other words, it’s cool for you to repost one of my photos for a critique of my work – but not cool if a celebrity site posts one of my photos for a story about an actor I shot…

In general I’d probably be cool with any blog post that would benfit me, such as blogs like yours about photography, as long as my metadata isn’t stripped out and I’m properly credited or better yet, if the post links to my website.

Public Knowledge lists The Association of College and Research Libraries as one of the groups they work with. The universities and the libraries are avid supporters of Orphan Works legislation. They also have a link to Creative Commons on their site. Lawrence Lessig is no friend to either copyright or photographers.

Re: statutory damages – I had a lengthy meeting with Howard Berman’s Chief Counsel on Capital Hill. When I suggested they leave statutory damages alone, she told me that would be impossible as statutory damages is the heart of the legislation.
Howard Berman wrote the bill and introduced in Congress. I’m going to go with his Chief Counsel and believe her on this one.

Registering your work with the Copyright Office will not assure any such thing. Should the proposed legislation be enacted into law, there will be a minimum of two private databases that photographers will have to register their images with. For all we know there may be many more databases established as this will conceivably be a huge revenue generator. If someone uses a screeenshot, or scans an image from a magazine, or any other scenario where there is no metadata, having that work registered only at the Copyright Office will not prevent the work from being deemed an orphan.

See also Myth#3 here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts

By the way has someone the email of David Lachapelle – I wanted to write a critical piece on it – I mean his personal email- not the myspace which his assistents use to get models. And don’t bother with his agents email – they are already busy with other creeps then to care about bloggers.

Anway if you pull one image of mine and use just that and include my name and a link to my page I am totally fine with it (metadata or not). You can praise or criticise me I don’t care but link to me and just use one or two images max.