I had a photographer send me all sorts of stuff wanting to sue me over almost the exact same situation. No nice note like you got first. It didn't go anywhere because unless you do all the paperwork and pay to register your copyright with the government the most you can sue someone for is the amount of profit they made using your work. Now when customers ask for graduation banners I tell them we can't use any pictures taken by that photographer because he will try to sue us so most go somewhere else for pictures.
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Graduation Banners
- Thread starter Farmboy
- Start date
FatCat
New Member
We've been doing grad banners for 4-5 years, and this year was the first time we had an issue with a photographer. A customer had emailed us a copy of a photograph which had the studio's emblem on it, my employee called the studio and asked if they would grant us permission to use the photo. The girl who answered the phone began to "go off" on my employee, literally berating him for even thinking to try to use their photo. We told the customer about it, they sent a photo of their own, printed the grad banner, end of story.
THEN - I get a letter in the mail from an attorney, on behalf of the studio with the usual spiel about " We were informed you were using intellectual property, cease and desist, blah, blah, blah..." Funny thing is we didn't even use their photo, we just called to ask permission, lol.
Idiot...
*Anyway, we have a sign-off sheet that the customer agrees that the artwork they are supplying is their own, and they are allowed to reproduce it, and they assume full responsibility, blah, blah, blah.... We always try to be on the up and up, but problem is, if a studio has their watermark on a photograph then it's a no-brainer, but there are just as many photographer hacks as there are sign hacks, so sometimes it isn't always easy to tell.
THEN - I get a letter in the mail from an attorney, on behalf of the studio with the usual spiel about " We were informed you were using intellectual property, cease and desist, blah, blah, blah..." Funny thing is we didn't even use their photo, we just called to ask permission, lol.
Idiot...
*Anyway, we have a sign-off sheet that the customer agrees that the artwork they are supplying is their own, and they are allowed to reproduce it, and they assume full responsibility, blah, blah, blah.... We always try to be on the up and up, but problem is, if a studio has their watermark on a photograph then it's a no-brainer, but there are just as many photographer hacks as there are sign hacks, so sometimes it isn't always easy to tell.
GoodPeopleFlags
New Member
OHHHH!!! You've got to be kidding. The photographer needs to chill out. It's a graduation banner, not a billboard!
TXFB.INS
New Member
We do the same thing, if there is no water mark than how are we to know otherwise.
If there is a water mark we inform the customer that we are unable to use it in the current form and will need another image.
bottom line it is up to the photographer to better protect there work from being taken by the customer.
Just like the sign world, no proof is EVER provided without a watermark and a property of stamp on the design/photo
Marlene
New Member
the title of the thread is "graduation banners" did you print a banner using a photo that they paid to have taken for their senior photo? if so, they paid for the photo and it clearly will be published as tht is the point of it. if this was a student's photo paid for by the student for use for their senior photo, the photographer should back off as what did he expect the student would do with the photo? it will be used online, published and used for banners
Gino
Premium Subscriber
Seriously....... only one thing was done wrong in this whole scenario. You used some artwork you weren't authorized to use. Regardless of how/why/where you got it.... it is your responsibility to be sure you are not printing something you aren't allowed to use. However, the note from the photographer didn't sound harsh or threatening. He was simply making a friendly suggestion/reminder in hopes whoever the guilty party was, doesn't do it again.
Why do most of you justify doing it anyway, regardless of not knowing all the facts ?? There is no reasonable way to duplicate something/anything already out there, unless you are sure.
What would happen if he made a mockup and the person buying the banner took it to someone else to have it made ?? Would the OP here be eligible for making the design and collect for that ??
Why do most of you justify doing it anyway, regardless of not knowing all the facts ?? There is no reasonable way to duplicate something/anything already out there, unless you are sure.
What would happen if he made a mockup and the person buying the banner took it to someone else to have it made ?? Would the OP here be eligible for making the design and collect for that ??
TXFB.INS
New Member
Seriously....... only one thing was done wrong in this whole scenario. You used some artwork you weren't authorized to use. Regardless of how/why/where you got it.... it is your responsibility to be sure you are not printing something you aren't allowed to use. However, the note from the photographer didn't sound harsh or threatening. He was simply making a friendly suggestion/reminder in hopes whoever the guilty party was, doesn't do it again.
Why do most of you justify doing it anyway, regardless of not knowing all the facts ?? There is no reasonable way to duplicate something/anything already out there, unless you are sure.
What would happen if he made a mockup and the person buying the banner took it to someone else to have it made ?? Would the OP here be eligible for making the design and collect for that ??
unless there was markings on the photo, in whatever form you can think of, how is farmboy (or any sign maker) supposed to know where the photo came from.
more over if the photographer supplied the customer with high res photos without a water mark or some wording stating who the owner is again how is the producer supposed to know that the photos were not purchased and to be used at the customers prerogative.
This is why you always get the customer to sign the waiver stating the designs / photos are their property and are free to use at their behest.
see my previous comments regarding the "mockup" being taken to another shop
GoodPeopleFlags
New Member
So you think the person who paid for the photo should've went to the photographer first and said, "Hey, this photo you took of my kid for the yearbook, that I paid you for, would it be ok with you if we took it to a sign shop and had a banner made for my kid's graduation party? Who in the world would do that??? And what is the photographer going to say? No? Or "Sure, if you pay me $XXX for use of a photo that you've already paid for"?
Rick
Certified Enneadecagon Designer
Photographers own the photo/work. Plain and simple. How they enforce that is up to them.
Just like a designer "owns" the work.
To release the work/design, they have to make a written statement that they give up some or all rights to the design.
Most muggles ignore the fine print or they believe they can do what they want with the work.
Another thing is, photographers make money on reprints, I can only assume that this photographer has the means to print a banner (or sub it out) and that they could have made the banner and made a profit from that. Either way, a courteous response with an explanation would be a best way to resolve this.
Gino
Premium Subscriber
Nope, you both... and probably a lot of others are reading too much into this. I said, without knowing all the facts involved. We don't know what kind of pictures they were. It wasn't one, but two separate pictures. Money was made on the OP's part, so there was monetary gain from the use of these pictures. If there was a watermark or some other kind of marking, wouldn't that render the photo kinda useless in it's original intention, let alone to use it here ??
And no, I don't think the person who paid for the photo should've gotten permission. They are not using it to make money. No need to. Besides, we still haven't established how the owner of these photos obtained them in the first place.
I'm not placing blame or making fun of Farmboy here. I'm merely saying he didn't do his job as a duplicating or replicating business. Today's sign shops are not what they were of the past. Years ago, this almost couldn't happen as there weren't near as many ways to do this. Either photographs or hand drawings were made. No printers, fax machines or other quickie ways to do this were available. Do you realize, once xerox machines came out, each and everyone of them had rules as to what you could not duplicate on the machine ?? You'd be surprised at the list. Once they made color copiers, the list grew by leaps and bounds. There is no difference between those and what we're doing as sign shops, but acting as duplicating houses.
So, both of you say, there has to be markings on something before copying becomes legal, huh ?? However, anyone who knows anything knows that even mental conceptions, preliminary drawings non-signed off proofs will get them your money. Right ?? Anyone in this forum site has b!tched and complained that someone stole their idea, let alone drawing and no one ever said a thing up front about the consequences of such an act, but they wanna get paid for a half thought. It applies for us, but not a photographer. This was a complete, totally finished processed photograph and you don't want to ask a few questions up front ?? You want the customer, who has nothing to do with the duplicating or the laws attached to do the work assume responsibility for your work. Who gets paid ?? Who did the work ?? Who is in the wrong ??
The only way out of this siding on either of your sides would be, if an agency or broker came to you with this same stuff. Then you can get them to sign a waiver, cause they then need to do the leg work, because they are the end-seller. You could get in trouble, too, but not as much if they knew it was wrong upfront in the first place.
TXFB.INS
New Member
apparently I need to expand upon my point.
"unless there was markings on the photo, in whatever form you can think of, how is farmboy (or any sign maker) supposed to know where the photo came from."
How is someone supposed to know when the photo was done by a paid "professional" or by a family member unless there was/is markings identifying as such.
You can walk into most any store and get a digital camera that takes professional quality images merely by pointing and clicking.
Lets be perfectly clear here, no one has advocated or suggested the violation of copyright laws. What is being said is that the photos need to be marked as the property of the photographer otherwise what/whom is to say the photos were not done by someone whom seeks no monetary compensation for the photos (family member / parent / etc...) moreover time is money and you are telling me that you charge enough for a "graduation banner" to pursue all of the photos/designs are paid for before being used on a product?
If the customer supplies a photo/design and it is not clearly marked as the property of XXXXXX what grounds do I have to question the origin of the photos provided by the customer or if said customer is asked "you are able to use these photos?" and they say "yes" are you then supposed to demand a receipt stating as much?
on a side note, If I am understanding your comments (Gino) correctly you will not produce an item until you have thoroughly vetted ALL photos/designs that are submitted to your shop? and unless the customer can offer unequivocal evidence that they own said photos/designs you refuse to do they work? If that is case how do you get any work done or done in a timely manner? IMO it takes enough time as it is to get the customer to explain what is wanted much less authenticate everything that they say.
"unless there was markings on the photo, in whatever form you can think of, how is farmboy (or any sign maker) supposed to know where the photo came from."
How is someone supposed to know when the photo was done by a paid "professional" or by a family member unless there was/is markings identifying as such.
You can walk into most any store and get a digital camera that takes professional quality images merely by pointing and clicking.
Lets be perfectly clear here, no one has advocated or suggested the violation of copyright laws. What is being said is that the photos need to be marked as the property of the photographer otherwise what/whom is to say the photos were not done by someone whom seeks no monetary compensation for the photos (family member / parent / etc...) moreover time is money and you are telling me that you charge enough for a "graduation banner" to pursue all of the photos/designs are paid for before being used on a product?
If the customer supplies a photo/design and it is not clearly marked as the property of XXXXXX what grounds do I have to question the origin of the photos provided by the customer or if said customer is asked "you are able to use these photos?" and they say "yes" are you then supposed to demand a receipt stating as much?
on a side note, If I am understanding your comments (Gino) correctly you will not produce an item until you have thoroughly vetted ALL photos/designs that are submitted to your shop? and unless the customer can offer unequivocal evidence that they own said photos/designs you refuse to do they work? If that is case how do you get any work done or done in a timely manner? IMO it takes enough time as it is to get the customer to explain what is wanted much less authenticate everything that they say.
Farmboy
New Member
In all honesty I didn't see the photo's that were used. My wife took the order from her cousin and my graphics guy did the artwork. Not passing the buck, but I don't get to see everything that comes through the door. Would that have changed the outcome, probably not. We reproduce artwork all the time. Local businesses bring us graphics, sports teams ask us to match a previous years design and so on and so on. Will I lay awake at night worrying about a swat team of lawyers breaking down my door, no. Will I pay a little more attention, probably, until the next thing to worry about pops up. Which judging from this business will be tomorrow.
Unless the photographer had put his signature or water mark on the image. i consider his right to the image null and void. unless the photographer can provide me with a written copy of the no copy or distribution agreement between their party and the customer, i consider his threats nil. i would apologize to him and say i didn't know his images were copy written and move on. At the end of the day the customer paid him to do a job of taking pictures. once he hand them to the customer, i the next copy center cannot know of his agreements if he did not water mark his image and state on the back of his images do not copy. i would tell him to print on the back of his images do not copy in the future.
Pat Whatley
New Member
Not uncommon at all. Most of the professional photographers that I know make far more money off selling copies of photographs than they do off the session. You pay a session charge for them to be there, they show you proofs, you pay for prints that you like. You don't own the rights to the originals, you own a print. You want more prints you call the photographer.
(That's MOST photographers because thanks to digital photography there are now almost as many professional photographers as there are graphic designers. Hire them for your wedding, they'll show us and take 5000 pictures, plop them all on a DVD, and let you sort through them and print what you want. There's a world of difference between a photographer and someone taking pictures)
There is no doubt that the photographer owns the print. Here's from LegalZoom: There is often confusion about who owns the photographs of a professional hired to photograph an event, such as a wedding. Prior to 1978 many courts ruled that a hired "author" of a photograph was an employee and thus the person who hired the photographer and paid for her services owned the images. In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals hired under those circumstances did not meet the requirements to qualify as an employee. Consequently, the photographer owns the copyright to the images and can set restrictions on how they are used.