Know thy Laws...

[Kerrie]

This was on tonight. It's about a gold coast professional photographer who didn't quite get it right....

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8486234/photo-feud-divides-neighbours

[ricktas]

I tend to not watch ACA/TT etc cause their one sided reporting is pathetic. Nothing like creating a one sided view to get the viewer irate and yelling at the TV. I really feel this sort of gutter television is not worth the electricity it uses to broadcast it. I feel sorry for the photographer (even though I have not watched the article), cause chances are this could have been resolved without the need for trash national tv to be involved and sensationalise it.

[Kerrie]

I agree Rick. Not the most pressing issue in the world really. It does however highlight what can happen if you don't make sure youve covered all bases when dealing with people, especially with story hungry journalists running around.

Thought it might be useful to share for that reason. I take no sides. Just sharing the story.

When you run a business.....know thy laws. That's all.

[MiniFighter]

I watched it, as you mentioned Rick the attack was directed towards the Photographer.

The "Tog" agree'd it was an error on her behalf and took the images offline, BUT the parents still wants the original images...Yeah, so PAY for them.

[norwest]

I wouldn't even repeat anything i'd heard on either of the two nightly gutter shows and i'd trust a cornered tiger snake more than i'd trust them to be truthful. Sensationalistic and opportunist filth is too good a description for them.

[Kerrie]

Somewhere in photo land, I hope this post served someone in a positive way. Even if only to highlight why it's important to be aware of what can and can't be done without ramifications - of any kind, from any one.

Next post - cute fluffy kittens.

[Speedway]

I agree with all of the above re ACA and similar gutter programs. A bit of a mistake a "Pro?" posting them on red bubble, no pro would. But if they havn't paid for the photos they are not entitled to them.
Keith.

[FallingHorse]

A lot of people (professional and amateur) use Red Bubble as an online portfolio but you can elect not to actually have the image for sale.

[SpaceJunk]

both those shows have absolutely no interest to me , although I appreciate the irony of them attempting stories regarding ethics, still not my cup of tea though.

[kidazzle]

I do believe this particular program on ACA did however make it very clear that we can't sell our photographs if we don't have the model releases. Being an amateur photographer all of this information is valuable. So then where can I find some good links to information about photographic copyright and also how do journalists manage to use photos without model releases?? Sorry but I'm fairly new to the world of copyright and photography.

[Duane Pipe]

How dose a paparazzi get a "model release"

[reaction]

I do believe this particular program on ACA did however make it very clear that we can't sell our photographs if we don't have the model releases. Being an amateur photographer all of this information is valuable.

I believe this is wrong. I'm sure a pro-tog will chime in, but model releases are only required when the image is used for promoting a product.

I haven't read the article but in general
1) TV always gets photography issues wrong
2) Knowing thy laws doesn't help because everyone else doesn't know them, including the cops who invariable get called

[Kerrie]

http://www.ag.gov.au/Copyright/Pages/Whoisacopyrightowner.aspx

[Keith Young]

Yeah ACA gets it wrong a again. If the tog takes a photo and does not receive payment for the shoot, the copyright remains with the tog. So ya think a wedding tog is going to hand over the pics to the bride and groom with out seeing the dosh?? I don't think so Tim! The goods aren't yours till ya pay! So demanding the photos are yours having not paid, and after you have taken the story to ACA is just not going to happen. Just some more pathetic journalism by ACA. The tog did the neighbour a favour by taking them down, but still comes out looking like the bad guy. The model release is a grey area here as I believe they thought they were doing "each other a favour" at the time of the shoot, and I wouldn't be surprised if something else has turned the relationship sour before this. I think this is a learning experience for all of us, and it seems that a contract and/or release will be necessary even if money doesn't change hands. I don't think there would be much of a market to third parties for that photo anyway it was more likely "an example" image. I think a lot of the comments in that story were taken totally out of context just to make the tog look bad.

[ricktas]

I believe this is wrong. I'm sure a pro-tog will chime in, but model releases are only required when the image is used for promoting a product.

I haven't read the article but in general
1) TV always gets photography issues wrong
2) Knowing thy laws doesn't help because everyone else doesn't know them, including the cops who invariable get called

Correct. A model release is only needed if the photo is used for 'commercial gain'. So being used on the side of a bus to advertise a product, etc. But it also means a photographer putting it on their facebook page could be considered 'commercial gain', in that the photo is being used to demonstrate the photographers skills, and from that photo, gain more work.

[Redgum]

A storm in a teacup. I've been a television producer for over 30 years and this story is fair game. Bottom line. The tog took photos of her neighbours child with a dog (with permission of the parent) but just didn't bother to tell the parent her intention to sell. Unfortunately for her the child or the parent found the photos on Redbubble. The tog was probably bragging about them (supposition). So the tog got what she deserved. No different to any other petty theft.
Of course, the tog will come out way ahead. No pro-photographer could get that sort of advertising (togs van was in picture most of the segment) for less than a years wages.
Moral to this story is to share the spoils with the victim and you get no complaints. Only people to make money now are the lawyers and they won't be too interested because of the amount involved and most animal togs are stony broke.