I was just browsing eBay, and ran across a T shirt that I really liked at first glance… and I took a closer look , and thought , hmmm… those eyes look familiar…
This picture was taken at the Soaring Gull Circuit shows in Virginia Beach in Oct. 2004. Here is the link to my PhotoBucket copy of the pic:
My question… is it ethical for the photographer to use the picture of my dog without my permission? I really don’t mind, but it WOULD have been nice to at least recieve a free shirt… sigh
Do you actually own the rights to the photograph, or were they retained by the photographer (assuming you weren’t the photographer)? Did you sign a release of any kind when the photo was taken? Is the photographer who took the original pic the same person making the shirts? (If, as the auction says, there are 100s of breeds, it would make sense for it to be run by someone whose business is taking photos at shows)
The photo was taken by a professional photographer at the show (In celebration of Kharma getting her first point at her first show). I don’t remember signing any sort of release. The person selling the shirts is the same one that took the pictures.
This just feels wrong to me; I would not have minded them using the picture in the least, but when you consider that I paid her close to $100 to take the pictures in the first place, it seems to me that I should have at the very least gotten a few free shirts out of the deal…
Ethical mmmm maybe maybe not. Legal, sure. IIRC it doesn’t matter what the subject of the picture is, the rights belong to the person who took the picture. My undersanding is that even if I owned a photo studio, I set up a picture with my gear, my camera, my lights, the subject might even be my dog, I got the camera settings all the way I want them, then I have you, my employee on my time come and push the shutter realease, then you own the picture. Of course I’m not sure that’s totally correct, but it’s always been my basic understanind.
As a side note. My grandfater-in-law has boxes and boxes and boxes of old grusome photos. He used to be a crime scene photographer and since he still owns the right to the pictures he still has them in his house. Although he says he can’t even look at some of them anymore.
It’s possible also that whatever papers you signed to enter the show included a clause disposing the rights of any photographs taken by the official photographer, if the host club’s contract with said photographer disposed the rights to him. Sitting fees are generally understood not to include the rights. This is why you have to send the proofs back once you’ve picked out the shots you want prints made of.
If a few shirts are all you want out of the deal, why don’t you just email this guy, identify yourself and your dog, explain your situation and ask him if you can get a shirt or two just on general principles?
Ah, but this photographer was NOT the show photographer, she was doing PORTRAITS , not show pictures. There was a totally different one doing the ‘official’ show pictures.
I did drop her a line thru the ‘ask seller a question’ feature on eBay, and identified myself and Kharma, told her what a shock it was to see MY dog looking back at me, and said I would love a couple shirts, but can’t afford them (they are WAY overpriced !!). I likely won’t hear anything till Monday, as she goes to shows on weekends, but we’ll see where (if anywhere) this goes.
If it were a photo of PapSett herself, I’d say yes. The smooshy part of the answer here involves the fact that it’s a photo of a dog, which generally has no rights of privacy or expectation of ownership of its own image. If I take a candid photo of some anonymous someone’s German Shepherd puppy tied to the cast iron fence outside a cafe, I can (if I recall correctly) make that image into calendars, paperweights, t-shirts, etc., without a reasonable expectation of a percentage from the dog’s owner, especially if I never even met the person because he was inside the cafe having lunch. It’s only when we get into images of individual human beings that the expectation of control over your image comes into play.
As Joey P posted, this may not be ethical. It’s most likely perfectly legal, though.
But… this was not a candid image, randomly taken. It was a picture I paid her to take of my dog. This is what is setting so wrong with me. I think it would have been a common curtesy for her to contact me, tell me what her plans were, and ask permission to use Kharma’s picture, AND of course, offer to give me a few shirts and other various items for using my diva dog.
That doesn’t matter, the photog still owns the rights.
There is a case (Rogers v. Koons) where a couple hired a photographer (Rogers) to take pictures of their eight German shepherd puppies. It was quite a cute photo. The couple paid him $200 for the sitting and the prints, but Rogers owned the image and displayed it in his portfolio, exhibited a print of it, and sold the image to both private collectors and licensed it for use in an anthology.
So the picture got around. At some point sculptor Jeff Koons got hold of it and used it as the basis of a work he called “String of Puppies.” The owner of the puppies saw a photo of the sculpture in the newspaper, and mentioned it to the photographer. Rogers, the photographer, sued Koons, and the court ruled it was a derivative work.
I believe Wikipedia has the story but I can’t get there right now.
IAAPhotographer, but IANALawyer. Yes and no to this. In general, the rights do belong to the person who pushes the button or triggers the camera. However, in many work-for-hire arrangements (which I refuse to do), the rights are transfered to the person who hired you. A lot of studios and wire services, for example, require you to surrender your rights to the photograph as a condition of your employment.
As for the OP, as far as I understand it, the photographer should have had the owner of the dog sign a property release if the photograph was to be used for commercial use. For editorial use? No release required. For eBay, yeah.
However, the issue seems to be confused. Some photographers say it is required. Others say no. Towards the end of this thread, there’s the following post:
This reflects the way the law has been explained to me. I don’t know whether the release is an extra measure of cover-yer-assitude or a requirement, but any photographer who does this for a living should included a cause in their contract to cover these bases.
I think it’s important to make clear that it is the copyright in the photograph itself, and not ANY picture of the dog.
That said, the rights in the photograph should belong to the photographer. An exception would be if the photographer was your employee, as employers generally own the copyrights of works produced by employees unless contracted out of, but it would be hard to say in this case that the photographer was your employee. I would probably guess that he was an independant contractor at best, if he was the official photographer of the show.
With regards to the notion that the owner of the property needs to sign a release, I think it’s more a CYA measure than a real legal requirement.
This is also the case in English Law, but I’m not too sure about whatever state you’re in.
Really, if all you want is a t-shirt, it might be better to simply ask for one. You might get it, you might not, but lawyers cost a lot more than T-shirts, and really, unless you’re looking for a share of the profits, it’s quite unlikely you’ll come out even.
Nope. When you pay to have your portait taken, the photographer retains the rights. That’s why you cannot take a print into Walmart and have it duplicated; it would violate the photographer’s copyright, and Walmart (or whoever) will refuse to make copies of copyrighted photos for anyone but the copyright holder.
LOL… I honestly am not looking to gain any profit thru this. (besides a shirt or two ) I just , for lack of a better word, find it incredibly RUDE that I was not told or better yet , asked , if they could use MY dog to pad their pockets. I know not everyone feels this way, but my dogs are my children… and I don’t think anyone would want their kid’s pictures used in this manner without their permission.
) I just , for lack of a better word, find it incredibly RUDE that I was not told or better yet , asked , if they could use MY dog to pad their pockets. I know not everyone feels this way, but my dogs are my children… and I don’t think anyone would want their kid’s pictures used in this manner without their permission.