Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,954   Posts: 1,558,032   Online: 1106
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California desert
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    871

    another issue

    There is another issue other than copyright. The issue is who retains the right to keep the physical negatives in their possession? Traditionally, that right went to whomever paid for the film. In the 1970s and 1980s models used to advertise in a Southern California amateur photography publication. They would trade model time for some photo prints for their portfolios. Some would even offer to buy the film. That was because they knew if they paid for the film they would get the right to keep the negatives in their possession. So the hapless photographer didn't even have the negatives if he wanted to make another print or two for HIS portfolio.
    I have always wondered, by the way, how digital changed that, since there is no one-of-a-kind negative with digital.
    Remember, too, big companies and rich people can bludgeon the little guy with big expensive lawsuits and don't have to win to come out on top. Try taking a photo of Barbra Streisand's beach house. She will sue you even though it is perfectly legal as long as you are not on her property. But plenty of people have been discouraged from photographing her manse. Money talks big. Remember that when you wander into Wallop-Mart.

  2. #12
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,739
    Images
    23
    Meanwhile....most Walmart stores don't seem to be returning negatives with 35mm film processing....
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  3. #13
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,601
    Images
    60
    I expect that the Waltons and Walmart are trying to control the use (or potential mis-use) of the photographs. And I can understand their desire to do so.

    This is full of politics. And politics is nasty.

    Tactically, I might have advised a gentler approach - something like an income stream in return for control of the uses to which the photographs are put, but I'm not there.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #14
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,471
    Images
    225
    The fact is, walmart is being dumb, it will cost them more for this lawsuit than just offering the lady a REASONABLE sum of money for the images.

    $2,000 wouldn't even be a good cost for large print reproductions to hang in their main headquarters.

    She should just sell the negatives to someone else for a profit LOL

    Or burn them. Or threaten to burn them, or "lose" them.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #15
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,471
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektagraphic View Post
    Meanwhile....most Walmart stores don't seem to be returning negatives with 35mm film processing....
    I was thinking the same thing... Wonder if walmart keeps those negs or destroys them... Maybe they have 6 boxes of negs too... Lol
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #16
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,433
    Images
    343
    Isn't this one of the great things about chemical photography, that there is only one negative, owned by the photographer. Digital images can be perfectly replicated showing no difference between the original and a copy.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  7. #17
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,782
    But in practice that difference would not make a legal case as this one more easy to solve.

  8. #18
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,419
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    434
    According to US Copyright law, the photographer always owns the copyright to the images they take from the moment they click the shutter button UNLESS: A, the work was a work-for-hire agreement (where the product of the photographer's work is implicitly the property of the hiring party) or B, the photographer transfers the copyright in writing to a second party. Complications to this arise if, for example, the photographer has not obtained a model or property release for the images. They still own the copyright, but it constrains their ability to use the images commercially. In the case of the dodgy models who would provide the film, legally the photographer still owns the copyright to the images, but without the negatives, it becomes very hard to prove. You'd be morally in the right but you'd never be able to win that case in court. Today, something similar happens with commercial shoots - sometimes the ad agency will come with their own memory card, hand it to the photographer, and when the shoot is done, take the card back, and if the 'tog is lucky, they'll get some tearsheets from the publication where their work is used. But the solution to that problem is in the fee the photographer charges the agency. If you're surrendering everything, you'll pull a Bruce Weber. Back in the 80s when he did that famous Calvin Klein underwear ad, Calvin Klein insisted on a complete rights buyout - they got the copyright, and even the original negatives. Bruce's name was never printed in connection with the image. His paycheck? $1,000,000. For ONE ad. For that kind of money, I'd hand over my negatives too!

  9. #19
    omaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    362
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick A View Post
    It's crap such as this that reaffirms my total disgust for wallyworld and everything it represents. I totally abhor the stores, and refuse to shop in them. Oh yeah, don't even get me started with how I see their business practices in the local community/economy.
    I don't disagree with your sentiment here. I just think its too narrow. This isn't something that's unique to WalMart. It seems like most large corporations act in generally the same way.
    I shoot digital when I have to (most of those shots end up here) and film (occasionally one of those shots ends up here) when I want to.

  10. #20
    omaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    362
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    His paycheck? $1,000,000. For ONE ad. For that kind of money, I'd hand over my negatives too!
    I'm prepared to under-cut you by 50%.
    I shoot digital when I have to (most of those shots end up here) and film (occasionally one of those shots ends up here) when I want to.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin