Downloading Photographers pictures from meets

[Beekeeper]

I recently have noticed on Facebook many gymnast posting pictures from meets that have been downloaded that obviously have not been purchased. They have the photographers signature going through the pictures. This photographer probably needs to be a little more crafty and encode so people can not download theses. But can't we respect that this is how this person makes a living and not download these. Or let our DD's know that putting these on facebook may not be the best idea since we did not purchase. Again, the photographer is some what to blame if these DD's can download by clicking a button.

 

[Tumblequeensmom]

Interesting post. I'll be interested in hearing responses. I am one of the guilty ones. Some of the photographers out there make it extremely difficult to buy JUST ONE picture at a reasonable price. It's crazy to be spending $30.00 for one 5 x 7 picture. The photos are available publicly, and you honestly cannot get a photo without the watermark unless you pay for it. I guess I don't see the harm, since the photographer's website and/or name is posted along with the photo (if you use it only a public site such as Facebook). In fact, I have seen some of these photos posted and I will then go to that website to view the other photos. So if I'm viewing the website, I imagine many others are doing the same. Who's to say the photographer may be making more money from this "free" advertising? Five years ago or so, you could NOT download pictures at all....so maybe these photographers really do know what they're doing?

My DD is also on her HS team, and it's rare that there's even a photographer at a meet... when they are, the pictures are posted on an "online newspaper." So it is a public domain. Once again, when I post a picture of her, the newspaper's name is on the photo. I'm know that her relatives and even my friends who are not "gymnastic parents" go to visit those websites as well, hence more traffic for that newspaper.

 

[bpatient]

The photographer owns the copyright. I think that using a photo without permission is unlawful, regardless of how little harm you think it does or how anyone wants to spin it.

 

[MaryA]

I think linking to a photographer's site, on Facebook or whatever, is a good way to show the pictures. That way the photographer is getting the credit, and if Great Aunt Maude wants a picture of little Suzie's split, she has all of the tools to order one. But yes, just cutting and pasting a photographer's work into your facebook (or chalk bucket) account is wrong, and the adults on this site, especially, should set an example.

 

[Deanna]

There are so many ways to view this. But when you get down to brass tacs I BELIEVE that the photographer has all copyright. Im not sure what if ANY rights the subject of the photo has. Alot of prof places has a section on their order form that states they have the copyrights to the photos. And they can use them anyway they choose (within reason of course)..ect, advertising ect.
That being said. If they are really concerned about people taking pictures from their site they can block the right click option so people cant save it. There are ways around this im sure, but makes things harder and makes it clear that the photograper does not want ANYONE just taking the pictures. This is for their good, and the safty of their subjects.
Where i think right clicking the pic and saving it to your computer is not right...I think linking the picture is fine. Find your picture on the photographers site, click on it (left), normaly this will take it to a larger version on its own page. Copy and paste the link from that page. And people can still see the image if they choose to. I know all the photographers i have delt with with my kiddos all have a site, and you are given your info so you can go directly to your "proofs". You can normal share that link once there with family and friends (will send them the link via email) so they can view them, and let you know what they like, or order something special (bag, coffee cup, ect) themselves if they want.
Normaly the photographers are pretty flexiable about it all. I think the basis for them is...not to get anything you didnt pay for, but to give the chance for everyone possible to get something if they choose. They want the business and the advertisement. If you have any questions, just call them up and ask. I know at both meets Kadee has gone to (same photographer..lol) he says when he takes the "team photo" that in a week, log onto my site, type in the meet, your gym, your level, ect ect ect and you can view your photos (he also takes pictures during the meet). So that you dont have to stand around after the meet in the crazy crowd trying to view the books to see where your child is. We got one of those posters of Kadee from him that way. (18 bucks shipping and all). We went home, a few days later, went to his site, typed in all the info, (stuff that only people who really know Kadee would know...not just some Joe Schmoe off the street). Im not saying they are all like him. Im sure there are some out there that wanna make your scream. But I do believe that for hte most part they want the business and they try to make it as easy for their customers as possible. Sometimes all you have to do is ask.

 

[10.0]

A friend of mine is a photographer and she actually encourages people to post her photos on facebook, but they all have a watermark so just like others have said it is nifty advertising for her and you still can't print them, if you want actual prints you have to buy them. And she is the one telling people to use them.


When I was a teen and danced we had competitions that had a pro photographer, you could go to his webpage and view the photos but in no way could you copy/paste them. So it is possible to make it so that people cannot get them. So in a small way it is the photographers fault as well.

I guess my view is if you like it enough just buy a few prints if you can swing it, you will have lovely pictures and you will be helping someone trying to make a living. It is kind of like going to the supermarket and sampling a few grapes.

 

[bpatient]

I suppose that a child who is caught shoplifting might excuse her actions by stating that the store was partly responsible because "it was right there on the counter!"

 

[gymnastbeth]

When I was a teen and danced we had competitions that had a pro photographer, you could go to his webpage and view the photos but in no way could you copy/paste them. So it is possible to make it so that people cannot get them. So in a small way it is the photographers fault as well.

But then again, you can always take a screenshot of the picture, and save it to your desktop that way.

It's not technically unlawful to take the copyrighted pictures with the watermark still on them to put them on facebook. Under the fair use rules for copyrighted images, as long as you don't get money from using it, you are allowed to. And hey, free advertising for the company. I usually will buy a couple, but I'm guilty of taking the watermarked pictures sometimes.

So it's legal. Whether or not its morally right, well, that's a whole other story.

 

[bpatient]

I think you misunderstand fair use.

This is from the US Copyright Office: "How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."


U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

A comprehensive discussion of fair use is available here:

Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - Copyright and Fair Use Overview and Resources

This situation is quite simple: If you don't think that the photographer will mind, you can ask permission. If you're reluctant to ask, then you should ask yourself why that's so.

 

[Tumblequeensmom]

Thanks RBW... to be honest, I had never really given this whole topic much thought until the original post!

 

[mariposa]

The photog at my DDs last meet has a Facebook link to "Share this pic" right on his website, so maybe that is the situation with the pics? Not sure. It is free advertising and family might order a pic. Even has a Tweet this button.

 

[gymnastjess]

I think its ok, plus maybe the girls have already bought the photos but didn't want to scan them onto the computer

 

[Tumblequeensmom]

Mariposa (and everyone else)... I just went back to where I got DD's photos, and they have the same link.. for both FB and the Tweet button.

 

[gymnastbeth]

I think you misunderstand fair use.

This is from the US Copyright Office: "How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

Although that is more talking about works of writing rather than pictures...One picture would be "limited portions" of the work, correct? Also, assuming the watermark was on, everyone knows where it came from, as if, "citing" the source.

 

[ejgymmom]

I'm a photographer so thought I'd throw in my $0.02 on this thread. I have never shot a gym meet though, only do family and children. I personally don't care if a client takes my proofs and posts them on FB. They have in the past and it doesn't bother me a bit. They all have my watermark on them so it's free advertising for me when they do...and I've actually gotten a referral from someone who saw the photos that I took posted on their friend's FB page. I also give a CD when they purchase prints with all of the watermarked images that are sized down so that they can email to friends and family or post online. So for me personally, I don't care if someone "steals" their watermarked proofs without asking. They can't get them printed anywhere, because the files are so small and no photo printer will print a photo with a photographer's watermark on it. What DOES bother me is when a client takes the watermarked photo and crops or edits the watermark out of it. That happened a couple of times early on so now my watermark goes through a spot on the photo that makes it hard to crop out. So if you're cropping out the watermark, please don't do that.

HOWEVER, that said, I know many, many other photographers who put in their contract that photos are not to be copied off of their proof website in any way and posted online. So it's really up to the photographer and something that you should address with the photographer prior to removing from their website. If you sign a contract that says not to save, copy or share the proofs, then don't. It's that simple. Technically though, the photographer holds the copyright to the photos they take and can ask the client to remove them from FB even if they don't have it in their contract.. Honestly though, if they have their watermark on it that clearly shows their business name and/or website address I really don't see how they could get all that upset...it's free advertising!

Anyway, just my $0.02 since I have my own photography business.

 

[bpatient]

One picture would be "limited portions" of the work, correct?

No, that is the work.

elibogh has already confirmed that some photographers would not mind the use of watermarked images and might even be grateful for the publicity. Other photographers might believe that that would constitute misuse of copyrighted material--essentially theft. If you want to use such images, I think that you really should ask the photographer, and if you don't ask, I think that you should ask yourself why you won't, because I respectfully suggest that it may be because you believe that permission would be denied unless you pay for the right to use the image, and you want to find a way use that image without paying.

So ask. Then you can learn if that particular photographer will agree that you can use that image for free, or you can decide if you want to pay the asking price if payment is requested. Fair enough?

 

[ejgymmom]

Although that is more talking about works of writing rather than pictures...One picture would be "limited portions" of the work, correct? Also, assuming the watermark was on, everyone knows where it came from, as if, "citing" the source.

If you take a quote from an article, the article is the ENTIRE work and the quote is the "limited portion." If you post a photo that is not yours, with or without a watermark, that one photo is the ENTIRE piece of work. I suppose if you just wanted to post a snippet of a photo...like someone's hand, or a foot, or something, that could be considered a "limited portion"...but be sure to cite it back to the photographer!

 

[gymnastbeth]

If you take a quote from an article, the article is the ENTIRE work and the quote is the "limited portion." If you post a photo that is not yours, with or without a watermark, that one photo is the ENTIRE piece of work. I suppose if you just wanted to post a snippet of a photo...like someone's hand, or a foot, or something, that could be considered a "limited portion"...but be sure to cite it back to the photographer!

Would that include a cropped picture?

 

[ejgymmom]

Would that include a cropped picture?

Well, yes. A snippet of a photo would be a cropped picture. BUT it's very hard to compare pieces of writing to a photograph. When you quote an article, book, whatever...you're taking a VERY SMALL percentage of that piece of work to use for your own purposes. If you want to do the same to a photo you're really not going to be able to show people what you want them to see in that photo because taking a small percentage of that photo to share would be next to nothing. That's why I said I guess you could post someone's arm or foot or something. A slightly cropped photo (like removing the watermark) would not be a "limited portion" of that photo...that would be a major portion and if you did the same to a piece of writing that would be considered plagiarism. Right?

In any case, like rbw said, if you're (the general "you", not you specifically) questioning it this much then you know it's probably not an acceptable thing to do. The best thing to do if you're unsure whether you should be posting a photographer's photos on FB is to just simply ask the photographer. If there's a "share on FB/Twitter" link on their proofing site already then chances are the photographer is like me and doesn't care. It's really when clients go behind the photographer's back and knowingly post photos that they aren't supposed to or crop/remove watermarks that the photographer gets upset.

 

[emandelsmom]

I am a photographer. I have shot meets for our team. We also do portraits, weddings etc. I don't mind pics being posted with our watermark. The ones I hate who steal and edit off the watermark. Those people are cheap. Chances are if asked I would have given a digital image with the watermark. Don't steal and edit it off.