|
freelance
|
Archant have made some of their long term photographers redundant. I know of two, and there are probably more. Now they announce a scheme where they are begging the public to send in their photos for free. Called iWitness. The public can now feel they are part of the news, they say.
This may be a sound business move, but is it ethical?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
I saw that and thought cheeky bu....s they are just going for freebies
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Boatbuilder
John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict
Gender: 
Posts: 4752
I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!
|
There was a full page article about that iWitness in last week's Advertiser. Joe public should ask for a fee if they want to use their pictures, then maybe they [Archant] may realise they have made a mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 An Oyster 575 |
|
|
|
JollyJapes
Guest
|
I guess it also depends on the small print. Who would own the photo copyright - the photographer or the media company?!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
Dont really matter,- they are still getting somethig for nothing
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JollyJapes
Guest
|
Ah but it can matter, as often a picture used by a small newspaper can be picked up and used by the nationals. If Archant get copyright, they can actually sell it and make money, if the photographer owns copyright then it could still be used but has to have ' photo supplied by' caption on it, naming the photographer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
Ah but it wouldnt matter because no one with any sense would do their job for them for free, so no one with any sense would be sending any pics in
but I wont spoil your gme JJ cos I know how you love small print 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frankiesays
|
The BBC do the same thing, any pics you send in to them become their property.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trigger
|
There’s an interesting article: “Copyright & Licensing” - http://www.photoassist.co.uk/fullarticle.asp?ano=1161
Under the sub-heading: Do not give away your copyright, the article states: “Remember, if you hand over copyright in an image, you will have no rights to that image.”
So, as I understand it, if you sent in a photo to a newspaper - you have given them the copyright to your photograph - they now own your photograph. Should you want to use it elsewhere e.g. you set up your own website - you won’t have the right to reproduce it there without that newspaper’s permission - as they hold the copyright to your photo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
So the moral of the story is -'dont do the press's work for them'
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mel
|
Archant have made some of their long term photographers redundant. I know of two, and there are probably more. Now they announce a scheme where they are begging the public to send in their photos for free. Called iWitness. The public can now feel they are part of the news, they say.
This may be a sound business move, but is it ethical?
I don't think it is ethical but in the world of publishing it must sound like a great idea; a wide selection of pictures to illustrate their stories with virtually no cost. With the advent of powerful digital cameras an integral part of mobile phones which can now relay their data straight to the newspaper/magazine's editorial desk straight after the shot being taken; publishers would be foolish not to take advantage...in my mind it does not make it right though, especially as the photographer loses the copyright of said picture. Not to sure if Archant keeps the copyright with their system but I believe the BBC does with theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trigger
|
And this could raise a legal question - if I post a photo on here - have I “given” that photo to Lowestoft on Line - or is the photo still mine - and I hold the copyright? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
Good point guess only Darren could answer that however presume there would have to be some contract or information within the rules which most of us proably havent gone over with a tooth comb but i m sure someone has
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JollyJapes
Guest
|
Any use of materials contributed by our members will be published with a clear notice indicating the ownership of displayed materials. http://www.lowestoftonline.com/?page=useragreement
This indicates that although the website has the right to use the material, copyright is still retained by the photographer/poster. Which in my opinion is how it should be for all websites.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Boatbuilder
John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict
Gender:
Posts: 4752
I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!
|
Trigger, in view of the following extract from the LOL User Agreement, and no mention that copyright passes to LOL, you should be able to safely assume that the copyright of your personal photographs (and any other material) remains with you. Also, providing that the images have not been moved out of the main boards which are accessible to all members, you can also remove your images, and other material from the website yourself.
quote:
"You also agree not to post any material unless the copyright is owned by you, you have permission from the copyright owner to republish their work online, or the material is a small selection from a larger work and is being published solely for the purpose of critical review. In the case of publishing material that is under copyright of someone other than yourself, you are required to post a source, and if possible, a URL to where it can be found online."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
An Oyster 575
|
|
|
|
snowdrop
|
i had pic of me done by a professional nice one made me look 20yrs younger air brushed.i took it to boots get copy and they refused said copy right so my mate copy it on her computer and i use it on fb..i was told if you quote more than 30words from authors work that copy right also but something like forum is ok aslong as say author after 30words.if that makes sense
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trigger
|
Thanks BB & JJ - it was just a passing thought - am totally happy with posting pictures on here. I should have read the rules myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freelance
|
Photos that have been reduced to under 150KB for a website are pretty useless for any good quality reproduction.
OK for other websites and e-mails, but not for commercial publishing.
A photographer must try always to keep his copyright unless he gets very good payment. Photos can then be used over and over for publication and be paid for every time. Sometimes it is the photo least expected. Relevance sometimes over excellence of the picture.
Beware of competitions - they often try to claim "All rights".
There is prestige for an amateur in getting their pics published, but the Archant idea does not seem good for the press photographers made redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scorpio
|
Very unethical - but thanks to this site they've been rumbled. God, they must love this site sometimes!
If Archant like the idea of something for nothing how about they practise what they preach? How about they provide free papers everywhere? Like they already do at the town centre McDonalds, & have done for months.
As for the photos, if the thrill of seeing your picture in print is enough, all's well & good. But if you want more I guess it depends how much Archant wants your pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scorpio
|
And this could raise a legal question - if I post a photo on here - have I “given” that photo to Lowestoft on Line - or is the photo still mine - and I hold the copyright?
Photos that have been reduced to under 150KB for a website are pretty useless for any good quality reproduction.
The solution is to host the photos on your own website, complete with your own copyright, then to just link to them on forums or other sites.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freelance
|
The solution is to host the photos on your own website, complete with your own copyright, then to just link to them on forums or other sites.
A solution would suggest there was a problem.
I see no problem.
I use the reduced copies on here and for publication use the full large size files.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scorpio
|
The solution is an answer to the problem of protecting copyright of one's own photos online.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
Not everyone has their own website so how does that help
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trigger
|
Many people have a Photo Management Program - e.g. Photo Shop, Paintshop Pro, etc - and they usually have the ability to make a ‘Copyright Watermark” - for example: © Trigger which can be put onto the image that you post.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
I dont have any painting photo programmes so I ll have to sign them all or better still not send any anywhere
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Boatbuilder
John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict
Gender:
Posts: 4752
I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!
|
FC, You should have 'Paint' on your computer as standard which enables you to put text onto a picture as I have here. The program usually resides in the Programs in the 'Accessories' folder.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
An Oyster 575
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
I do have paint in my accessories but thought that was a drawing/colouring thing didnt know you used it with photos
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George27
|
It would seem that a well known daily paper has used photos without getting prior agreement. http://bit.ly/AqwQgZ
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ATHEISM IS A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION
cyclelowestoft.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
Trigger
|
Thanks for that BB - so much easier to do that with "Paint" than the way I've been doing it!
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pauly Knub
|
I know i am going off topic..
But freeware 'Paint.net' has been around for years...I've use it first for basic editing (but it comes with a few more things/effects added) before i get onto more serious software..
A lot better than the basic version that comes as standard with Windows..because it can do a lot more, looks the same and easy to understand..and it's free..
http://www.getpaint.net/download.html#download
Right...Back on topic..
Pauly
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
