In the example above I have effectively "spoiled" that great shot to make my ownership of the image completely obvious (and make it less liekly to be ripped off by internet users!. Other times I chose to have my "watermark" more discretely some where on the image, ( usually bottom right) , but even then, try to place it to make it a little harder to crop off easily. This should tell people that the image is a product of mine, offered for sale and which has a value i.e. as in © in the word "costs !" It cost me to produce items like this so reasonably , there is a cost to anyone that wants it.
My watermark is usually "image/photograph ©johncoxon" and it contains this symbol © the internationally recognised symbol for copyright.( in other languages this often more obviously expressed / translated into the phrase "rights of the author."
Whether you are a professional or amateur photographer, under a set of international laws in the "Berne Convention" , the author or artist owns all rights to his or her "intellectual property" that is their painting, a poem, a report, a book or any photograph they take . Thus their work, whether for profit or pleasure remains their property , unless they give their rights away and those rights are protected in most countries in the world who are signatories to the Berne Convention.
It should be understood, that, even if a photographer does not mark their image with their name and the copyright symbol, they still own the copyright of any of their images and you have no rights to use that image anywhere without the owner's permission. That includes anywhere on the internet including Facebook. Facebook terms and conditions are in line with international law. You can only post images that are yours or those you have a right to use. You cannot, for example, lift an image from say a singer or players website, even if it is watermarked, on your Facebook , without having the permission of the copyright owner. It is a common fallacy that anything published on the internet is in the "public domain" and therefore fair game. On that basis anyone would be free to walk into a public high street shop, take what food they want , and leave without even expecting to have to pay!
All images on the internet are owned by the person who took them with their camera device and you are only free to use them if , for example, the photographer has expressly given permission for a use or any use of their work, for example on so called "royalty free" image websites.
I am frequently asked to cover games or supply images from games to clubs, teams, players and associations "free" of charge and often the owners / administrators of those websites agree to give me a mention as the photographer. This is sometimes known as a "credit" or a "by-line" in the press. Typically those people are running web sites on an amateur basis on behalf of a group or organisation as an unpaid volunteer and typically those websites technically are "not-for profit." as their group or organisation cannot afford to buy in professional photographs.
In fact, anyone who thinks that a mention of the photographers name, their website for example, has any real value to the photographer, is sadly mistaken! Kudos is not an international currency and is unbankable. A photographer with a website has , ultimately, to pay for any increase in visit traffic through increased use of bandwidth. In the main visitors will be window shoppers not paying customers.
Images that are used in print and other media that are actually paid for tend not to be marked with a copyright watermark, and indeed I usually have to insist that newspapers identify me as the photographer as it is not always normal practice to automatically credit the source with a by-line. Increasingly print media uses images under licence from one of a handful of major world image agencies like Getty Images and AP.
Typically , for example , Getty images have their watermark discreetly bottom right af all their images. Usually as well, the newspaper will include a vertical caption along the edge of one of those images which also identifies the photographer. Getty do not own any of those images, the photographers submit images to them and take a cut of any income Getty, as an agency , can get for them.
Now then, how many images do you see on people's Facebooks that actually are Getty Images? Hundreds and thousands. What's the harm in that? It is free advertising the myth goes. Trust me, Getty images do not need to advertise. They do however, occasionally hit some poor innocent who abuses their copyright and take them to court for unlicensed use of images.
Some images have great value to the photographer and it is not uncommon for one great image to bring in say a couple of thousand pounds in a year. This is especially so when one great "generic” image has very broad appeal and can be put to good use by a variety of clients. One such image was one of an estate agents sign which had ivy growing around it. This was a great icon for the down turn in the housing market given the direct implication that that particular house had been on the market so long ivy had grown over the sign.
I have thousands of images in my collection and most have little potential value other than to the people who are in them. Even this fantastic hockey photograph has no real value. The player jumping has no wish to actually own the image, and that of course is a matter for personal choice over which I have no control. Essentially I am guardian of some great moments from the game at all levels.
The only value to me with "keepers" like this ( outstanding images from the sport amongst large numbers of relatively ordinary action shots ) is that it confirm I am a rather hockey photography than most as you rarely get images like this by accident! ) Great photography is about capturing the moment and more important being experienced enough to do it consistently. A professional with nearly forty years experience should , at every occasion, whatever the subject, guarantee that the majority of their images will be top drawer.
In the main, most of the images from the game you see of mine, and I include around the world here, were used on websites and in newspapers without any payment , but used with my permission . That is me making a conscious choice to help out and support the game or a particular team.
I have for example, never received any reward from the not-for-profit ezine, Women Sport Report.com for any illustrated report (on any sport) I have contributed there. This is not just a flash in the pan thing, this is over a number of years and there is, by now, quite an body of my work there. The two founders run that site in their own time, at their own expense, are on a long term mission I share with them, and , event though doing that would be a full time job anywhere else, both have to do day jobs to keep the site up and running.
So there we have it. My name goes on my work because I am proud of what I do. You know it mine. It also flags up that I value my work and if you want to use it there is a cost unless you can persuade me to grant permission of use at no charge!
You should know that I do not take pictures like this at no cost to myself and nor do any of my professional colleagues . Quite apart from l, overheads, including maintenance of professional photographic and associated IT equipment, the running costs of my office etc , runs out, on average, between £80-£90 for tax purposes. (Accepted Inland revenue rate for car travel expenses , associated with your work, is 40 p a mile currently!) That £90 is not a week, I should add , but per day! so when say, a "pro" agrees to cover an evening birthday bash for £100, all in, the return isn't that great!
Getting back to the copyright issue, I do now understand the market and know all about recession and struggling to make ends meet. What I do professionally is a luxury that people can't afford everyday and you can always find photography cheaper from somewhere else, maybe even find a mug who will do it for nothing, although no professional will so it is at your own risk.
All I ask is that you respect my work , my livelihood after all, and the situation I often find myself in ,and do not use my stuff without at least asking me first. Maybe you might like to think of the © symbol next to my name on all of my work as "c" for consideration or consequences?
Please note I have no affiliation with either Bowdon Sports Club , Bowdon High Town Women's Hockey team , its officers and officials and none should be implied or is intended. The image is included to illustrate one of the issues, informally discused here, namely where a photographer allows one of their images to be used on a voluntary, not for pofit basis, that is free of any charge, and where that generosity is acknowledged by the media making use of that image.
No comments:
Post a Comment