Copyright Issues with regard to your photographs

[Nev]

From the end of the 'Unstable Air for the NI around 9-14th Jan' thread...

As this topic is no longer current and the theme of the topic has turned to something irrelevant, I will close the topic.
To continue the latter postings of this thread please make it, in a new topic in the "Off Topic" section.
JohnGaul
NZThS

Agreed John, however rather than close the previous topic (which is far from being 'no longer current'), why not just transfer the previous comments you think don't pertain to that topic over to this thread, as I think copyright issues are far from irrelevant. The previous thread simply raised some interesting and perhaps important issues with regard to the rights of original intellectual property owners that perhaps some members may wish to discuss further or may not be aware of.

I also agree with Mark that some people may have overreacted or perhaps misunderstood the gist of the discussion. And, if nothing else, I would just like to respond to some of the last posts.

Firstly, my apologies to Phil if he has interpreted the discussion as a personal attack. It was never meant to be and perhaps someone could please tell me what part of the discussion might have been deemed offensive.

Personally, I also have no problem sharing or contributing to open source software etc. What I do feel uncomfortable about however, is relinquishing all rights and control over an image that I might have spent a great deal of time, effort and money to achieve with absolutely no or little reward, while at the same time someone else has ability to profit by it again and again.

If Phil is happy to act as an agent and promote the photographers on this forum, while at the same time also being able to equally benefit, then all well and good. But I also feel that a photographer should be able to exercise some control over their image and it's usage.

[Philip Duncan]

I probably shouldn't be writing more (as I don't want to fuel this for days!) but I feel the need to answer you Nev. Firstly - absolutely no offense taken Nev - I just don't see the point in discussing it as it's a moot point in my view.

Those who don't want to allow their images to be used in news stories unless a fee etc is discussed before hand simply won't send us images in the first place. But everyone who has posted a photo on my site has been thrilled when their photo has a) appeared on our site. b) even more excited when it's appeared in the paper or tv. There's no secret agenda with images sent in to WeatherWatch - newsworthy ones are used in all our media releases and we invite the media to use them with credits - full credits where possible.

If you're a professional photographer and want limits on your photo then that's fine too - put a note on the attachment saying you don't want this photo used anywhere else without your permission. We're happy just to get weather photos for our site - obviously that's our first passion! If you sent one in and requested this doesn't go beyond our site then that's totally cool!

We have semi-professional photographers more than happy to share photos with us and love having their photos used where possible - and not one person, out of the hundreds sent in to us, has ever asked for limitations or money. The majority that are sent in are just from "Mum and Dad' kiwis who are thrilled to see THEIR photo on the news! Even in my position I don't charge for images I give to the news media... I just love sharing what photos I take... and like anyone else in here, am disappointed if they forget to credit me - or spell my name wrong!

If anyone has spent a "great deal of time, effort and money" they are hardly likely to upload an image to our site in the first place. If you feel uncomfortable sending in a photo to us because we may use it in other areas then that is absolutely your right.

But like I say, this is a moot point in my view - as not one of the 3 photographers who agreed to share their images from this forum (and had prior knowledge that they would be sent to the news media) have complained to me about having their incredible pictures published!

Your comments have made me think though Nev - maybe our site needs to have a clearer disclaimer about the use of images sent in. We only use them for news purposes. If we were to make a weather calendar, for example, we would go back to the photographer and ask for their permission and pay them a fee for it. In fact I hope we can do that later this year.

Cheers
Phil.

[jamie]

Well said Phill.. totally agree with all of that.

[tgsnoopy]

No complaints here. Like the sound of the weather calender too!

Oh and if anyone wants full size pictures of any of those photo's PM me and I'll see what we can work out (eg cost reimbursal for a CD/Postage or free e-mail for just one, they are all 8Meg images, but no garantees of focus etc).

[Philip Duncan]

Thanks tgsnoopy - was thinking that a calendar of 2009's best images - for 2010 - would be a good idea. I need to persuade my bosses first though!! But the quality of photos coming through in the past few days has been exceptional! Will be in touch later in the year on that one!

[Vertigo]

yes, i also did not mean anything personal. just had concern for what seems like common courtesy. however, it seems in this case that the authors of the pictures in question dont mind them being used, so youre right, theres no harm done. my point wasnt about money, it was more about assumed permission to distribute, however, i guess on the internet its easier said than done. but that said, an actual news company like the herald should explicitly ask for permission in my opinion. its all about courtesy.

[Philip Duncan]

Hey Vertigo - never thought it was personal so no worries there. My comment in the other discussion was more about not wanting to argue over something that isn't really the weather. The Herald and Weather Watch have a very close working relationship...we are owned by the same company (APN) - and we have a 'share photo' policy. Neither of us charge or on-sell our images...we just like to share them. They always credit their sources...and we credit theirs when we use them. Btw - isn't that a weatherwatch.co.nz image as your profile pic! he he

But yeah, I agree about courtesy - and we're not trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes...as I said to Nev, I'm happy to adjust our terms so that it's very clear that we share our images with news media. It's then their decision if they want to put their image into the public domain or not. We're all about being open and sharing stuff.

I also forgot to say that a number of people ask for their names to be removed from photos. They want it to be totally anonymous... their enjoyment is just showing their family or children photos they've taken being posted on a website. Which is really cool!

[Vertigo]

of course. thats their choice too. i guess when you share a parent company, things get a bit muddier as well.. might want to put that in your terms perhaps?

[spwill]

(I suspect that today however, a similar shot might have slightly less value, due to all the extra competition from an explosion in more affordable good-quality digital cameras.)

There might be a few similar shots around from Wendsday night but it is a rare capture, the value in the shot being an Auckland icon being struck.

[Willoughby]

You can accuse them of copyright and bring down their internet connection.

[Tornado Tim]

Foggy, I think that only applies for downloading items illegally. Not just normal copyright issues.