I have this picture of me and a partner dancing the Rumba at a competition in San Francisco we went to last spring. It’s a great picture, shot by a professional photographer who was there at the comp. While I have many pictures of me dancing, most are in poor light, blurry, or with small cameras. This one is really nice.
I would like nothing more than to give my mother a nicely framed copy of this picture for her birthday. I know she would like it.
Over a month ago, I called the photographer to get another copy. I called several times over as many weeks. Never heard a peep. Today, I called back again. Even though it’s too late to be in time for her birthday, I figured I could just give Mom my copy and wait for the new one. There’s now a message on the phone that says they’ll be out of the office until January.
Thanks a lot, asshat. I know you’re probably jetting off to all sorts of glamourous dance shows, too busy to return a fucking phone call. But why the fuck did you plaster a big notice all over the back of the photo that says it can’t be copied without permission, list your phone number, and then not ever fucking respond! If you want to get more money out of your picture, you have to bother to sell it again. I’d be perfectly happy to pay the $20 per print you charge, but you’ve got to let me! If you weren’t going to bother selling me more, let me make my own fucking copies. It’s not like a picture of me dancing is any use to you.
The competition organizers gave you an exclusive presence at the comp, practically guaranteeing strong sales. Tomorrow a letter from me goes to them urging them to drop you on your sorry ass next year. You can stand outside the windows with a fucking polaroid and a sketch pad while a professional gets the work you obviously can’t handle. I’ll toss you a nickel on the way in.
I really wanted to respond to this, but I can see both sides of the issue and it’s making me dizzy.
Yeah, a business should return business calls, but it is a busy season right now. Send a letter, maybe someone else isn’t forwarding the messages to him.
I’d almost suggest doing what even sven proposes, other than it wouldn’t be legally on the up-and-up.
And, as frustrating and annoying as this whole situation is, you don’t have some God-given right to another copy of the photo. I mean, sure, I totally understand your outrage and I have to wonder why your calls are not being returned, but it isn’t as if he’s holding a photograph that you own and won’t let you get copies of it. Of course it is a photo of you so that makes it really personal, but that photo would have never existed (and never would have looked any good) had it not been for his efforts.
Not that it’s even remotely like this (well, perhaps just a little), but people contact me and want copies of the artwork or photos they see on my site. The may want a copy but I don’t have to give (or sell) them one. I don’t even have to write them back (but it’s bad if I don’t. Bad bad bad).
I called twice in September, once in early November, and once today. It’s not the season.
I can’t copy it. I’m sure none of the photograph places around will copy it because its got that notice on it. I tried taking it to one of those photo kiosks, but the image looked really crappy on the screen. Maybe I’ll just try it anyway. It’s only a few dollars.
You’re right. It’s his picture. Part of the reason I’m mad is that I’m torn between just wanting to just figure out how to make a copy and wanting to do the right thing and compensate him for his work. And I’m really trying to do the right thing, but he’s sure not making it easy on me.
I have to speak marginally in their defense. I had the same problem for my company; they took weeks to call me back in their own sweet time. When they called me, however, they offered without me asking to do them all free. I had about 30 + pictures that I needed reprinted and enlarged. So they made up for it.
If you give it to your mom, does that mean you’ll never get to see it again? I’m thinking if this guy refuses to sell you a copy, or lost his negative, you should feel OK about making a copy of it yourself from the one you gave your mom. If you want to, ask him for permission to copy it. You can always ask permission.
Oh, come on, Yosemite, he’s TRYING to pay the stupid fucks for the photo. If they’re that fucking stupid, it’s their problem, not his. Unless his mom rats him out to the Copyright Cops.
So you mean if someone likes some work of art that you or I have done, and we don’t fork over a copy when they ask us to, then it’s okay for them to (illegally) make a copy anyway?
Look—I agree that this photographer is handling this in a bone-headed way, and I totally understand why the OP is frustrated and pissed. Since we can assume that the photographer would give permission for the OP to make a copy (as long as photographer was paid) then I almost would advocate the OP doing just that (making a copy now, then paying the photographer later). However, the fact is, the OP (and he knows this) does not have a God-given right to a copy of one of the photographer’s pictures.
I went and made a copy of it at one of those little photo kiosks, and it actually turned out pretty good. Not perfect, but good. I’m going to put it in a frame and give it to Mom. And, should the photographer ever decide that I’m worth calling back, I shall order another copy and replace the one I made.
Huzzah. Problem solved. You are now being returned to your copyright argument, already in progress.
Walrus does not have a god given right to the picture, he likely has a contractual right to the picture.
This is not a random piece of art photography. This is a picture taken under contract with the expressed purpose of allowing people like walrus to purchase a copy. If the photographer refuses to make a copy available, I would consider that a breach of contract. I have no doubt that his contract with the competition committee states that the participants will be allowed to purchase copies of the photos, unless they are in the habit of having professional photographers take pictures that nobody is allowed to have copies of. If walrus is abiding by those contractual terms, he has a right to a copy.
If the photographer wants to call it a copyright violation, the courts have a remedy for him, and he opens himself up to a breach of contract suit.
I thought about that. At best, I probably have an implied contractual right to purchase the photo. In fact, he’s under no obligation to take pictures of me at all. Some dances, he shot some couples, and some, others. Because being there for the competition is pretty lucrative, I imagine that the contract between the competition and the photographer doesn’t really specify that the photographer has to sell the pictures because that’s obviously what he’s going to do.
Of course, it wouldn’t go to court over a single print, so we’ll never know.
But, since we’re now arguing about copyright, I’d say that while I have no legal right to a copy, I ought to have a right to get a copy for reasonable compensation. And yosemite, your art is (probably) a different case. People don’t have a right to a copy of any art they want, but don’t they have a right to control their own image? Just as there would be no picture without the photographer to take it, there would be no picture without a subject. Since I never signed away my rights to the images, could I demand that they be turned over or destroyed?
Ehhh . . . I’ll have to look up some sites to verify. It’s true, it’s important to get a model release before a photo is published (especially for commercial purposes), but if you are out in public (like you were), I don’t know if you legally have a right to copies of any photos that anyone snaps of you. (But I am not sure.) I don’t think you can even legally prevent the photos being published (which is not the case here).
If all published photos needed a model release, no newpapers would be able to publish anything, because they’d have to track down each person they photographed on the street, in the crowd, at the trial, whatever. Obviously that’s now how it happens. These random people on the street don’t generally go to the newspaper and demand a copy of the photo of themselves. It’s just one of the perils of being seen in public, I think. You might get photographed.
Re-reading your OP it says that the photographer was given exclusive rights to the competition. Like Cheesesteak said, if there was some contract between the photographer and competition, that might change things. I am not sure if the competition is strictly a “public” event (though if a whole lot of people were there then it sounds pretty public to me).
Generally speaking, however, if you are in a crowd of people (as opposed to your home or office) and someone takes a picture of you, you don’t have a right to a copy of that photo. Think of all the places you’ve been to—Disneyland, perhaps—and how everyone is snapping pictures of everything around them. Would it be reasonable to approach a fellow tourist and demand that they send you a copy of the photo they snapped of the Dumbo ride, just because you happened to get into the photo?
Right. I’m aware of that. But this is a picture of just me and my dance partner. There might be a couple or two in the blurry background, but you’d be hard pressed to even tell who they are.
I’m not sure about the public/private part. There were probably a hundred people in the room at the time. It was a ticketed event in a hotel ballroom. I’m guessing that’s public.
I am assuming that the photographer had an exclusive agreement, but I don’t know so. Cameras were allowed in the ballroom, so private people were talking pictures. But I imagine that the photographer, who walked around on the floor and had several tables set up to display pictures and take orders, didn’t just walk in that morning and decide to set that up. There was clearly a prior arrangement.
