Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Copyright 17-Feb-2005 At 8:33:01 PM Onsight

Message

Ronny has answered most of these questions but since I’d almost finished replying too…
On 11/02/2005 M8iswhereitsat wrote:
>The climbers you work with; do they actually make anything out of it,
>or is it done for the enjoyment of seeing a result printed sometime?
I’m sure climbers “work” with me or help me out for a range of reasons. Anyway, I do pay a commission in some circumstances depending mostly where and how a photo ends up been used. On occasion I’ve also being able to get them some gear, help hook the climber up with a sponsor, or get them a sometimes not insignificant payment directly from the company using the photo. It’s certainly not ideal but I believe I am very aware of and look after the climbers interests as best I can, and some climbers have done well out of it - either directly and/or indirectly.

>The guy on the Nestle label had (I gather), an arrangement with them that
>seems to have been later ignored by the company. In the absence of an 'arrangement'
>does the subject of a photograph have any rights? (The girls complaining
>about phone-camera pics taken of them on a Sydney beach seem to think so!).
I’m not familiar with the phone-camera incident you’re referring to (honest!) but that sounds like an invasion of privacy issue – even though it’s in a public space. I’m not a lawyer but I think generally speaking the subject of a photograph does have legal rights. For example you can’t use a persons image for advertising without their consent. Editorial usages are somewhat different though – hence the paparazzi (and all their rubbish).

>If you travel in places like PNG the locals often request payment if you
>photograph them... This opens up the 1st world vs 2/3 world debate but
>its still a valid (and interesting) viewpoint. >Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
I tend to mostly just photograph a 1st world recreational activity so I hadn’t thought about it much…
>If they accept a payment, does this lead to negating their rights?
I’d say probably not. Again it depends on how the photo is used. I don’t believe you actually have to pay someone to take their photo in a public space, so if the photo is used in an editorial context then there has been no breach of the subjects rights (invasion of privacy and slander/defamation issues aside). But if the image was used in an advertising context then it would come down to what was actually agreed. If a photo/image was used for advertising without a written/signed agreement to prove otherwise, the local who was paid a few bucks might be able to argue (or have lawyers argue) that advertising usage hadn’t specifically being greed to.
>Is it the same 'deal' here in Aust?
Yes, probably. And probably more likely to find out about and chase up such things.

>Does the law differentiate between 'family snap' type photography (albeit
>dangerous/difficult to obtain image), and 'commercial' photography when
>it comes to image subject claims or photographers copyright?
As far as copyright is concerned, I believe there is no distinction between ‘family snap’ and ‘commercial’ as far as the law is concerned. In Australia any creative work is automatically covered by copyright upon creation of the work. Here’s what the Australian Copyright Agency Limited have to say about it - this is copied from the CAL website at http://www.copyright.com.au
>“In Australia there is no requirement to register to protect copyright works. Copyright protection is free and automatic - it does not depend on publication, a copyright notice, or any other procedure. Copyright material is protected from the time it is first written down or recorded in some way, provided it is the result of the creator’s skill and effort and is not merely copied from another work…. The law gives owners of copyright exclusive rights to do certain things with their material. Copyright is intended to protect creative works from being used without the agreement of the owner and to provide an incentive for creators to continue to create new material…. Reproducing copyright material without the copyright owner’s permission will usually be an infringement of copyright…”

I don’t think the ‘family snap/commercial’ distinction would make a difference to “image subject claims” either – remembering that would depend more on how the pic is used. Just to reiterate – it’s generally either editorial (editorial content of magazines and books) or advertising (ads, catalogues, etc used to promote/sell and product or service).