Articles by Jack and Ed.
Sometimes just Ed.
Sometimes just Jack.
Sometimes both at the same time!
Feel free to add coments to any article.
Our book “The Copyright Zone” is on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/The-Copyright-Zone-Photographers-Artists/dp/1138022578
Order yours today. (Unfortunately the free Ginzo Army Knife when you order, is no longer available.)
Ed’s law firm’s new website is greenbergiplaw.com. It contains easy links to several of the videos done with Jack. You can also reach out to Ed or his associate Tamara Fitzgerald directly through the website.
Attorney Advertising.
Arclite theme by digitalnature | powered by WordPress
#1 by Peter DeMott on January 6, 2010 - 8:21 am
Quote
Could you please add the email subscription option to your blog. I have my blog subscribable through Feedburner which is now a part of Google.
#2 by admin on January 6, 2010 - 8:59 am
Quote
Thanks for asking. Will do, but might take me two weeks to figure out. Tied up this week, at a convention and a college next week, and then I’ll read about how to install a subcription. If it’s just adding a Feedburner widget, it might be done a lot faster. Still learning WP
Jack
#3 by Maria Brophy on May 4, 2010 - 2:19 pm
Quote
One other suggestion: On your “About” tab – fix this! 🙂
#4 by FrankB on October 24, 2010 - 2:04 pm
Quote
I would like to know if someone can give the link to the article
“You Too Can Make No Money Working From Home”
This article was published in – Photoshoshop User Magazine
March 2010 page 072 -073
I get this magazine at the WPPI convention in Las Vegas. I think is very interesting and I would like to share the link with a lot of photographers I know globally!
Thanks
#5 by Anita Kunz on June 14, 2012 - 5:27 pm
Quote
Regarding copyright infringement:
I’ve been a working artist for 30 years. My work has appeared internationally in and on the covers of countless magazines including The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times (please see http://www.anitakunzart.com)
It’s come to my attention that two of my copyrighted images have been used by a number of people on the internet without credit to me or or any sort of attempt at obtaining permission.
This puts me in an extremely compromised position with the company to whom I granted an exclusive license to one of the images and to whom I am contractually obligated.
And by using my images without credit to promote their companies and/or ideologies these many infringers are enabling others to take the images without permission as well, compounding my situation exponentially. In the past I have politely emailed some of these infringers asking them to remove my images. These requests have often been met with hostility and arrogance.
Therefore the only recourse I have to this type of theft is a legal one. I feel that the copyright system is important to artists because it essentially allows us to make a living from our efforts. Copyright was devised by the founding fathers as a way to allow the arts to flourish, by letting artists make a living making art.
And I believe that the concept of copyright is meaningless unless is is enforced. To this end I have decided to pursue these infringements legally with my attorney Ed Greenberg. I feel as though I need to defend myself against theft, theft of what’s most important and self-defining to me in my life, my work.
#6 by Paul Brockway on January 3, 2013 - 8:25 pm
Quote
If a blog site displays an image uploaded by a reader (and perhaps copied without permission) and doesn’t try to sell a product or service is there copyright infringement? What if there are ads on the blog site? Would the use of the image be considered as being used for commercial purposes?
#7 by Jack and Ed on January 4, 2013 - 9:42 pm
Quote
Paul, Ed is working on a longer answer, but a short answer from the non-lawyer, namely me, is that it doesn’t matter if they sell a product or service or have ads. An infringement is an infringement. You need to know what a thief is doing with stolen property, it’s just stolen property. Imagine, someone breaks into your house and steals your prize guitar, “Oh, you’re not fencing my guitar or selling it, you just want to play with it? Oh, yeah, take it”. Doesn’t work that way. Now some of the factors might come into play on the judgement amount, but not on the infringement. Again, this is a general answer and every case has it’s own nuances and circumstances. It’s hard to give a one size fits all answer because of a lot of variables and as I find out, few things are one answer fits all when it comes to the law. And I’m not the lawyer, Ed is, so let’s see what he says and corrects me if I got any part incorrect.
#8 by Paul Brockway on January 5, 2013 - 10:56 am
Quote
So how does a photo site like thechive.com show so many images of professional models/celebrities? Given that they have hundreds of new images every day, they can’t be getting permission to use every photo?? Or do they just rely on their “rules” that a poster must agree to that every picture uploaded was used with “permission” even though they know very well that most were just copied off the internet?
#9 by Chuck Riley on January 17, 2013 - 7:06 pm
Quote
Your tutorials on Kelby Training are really well done. When I fill in my name in the copyright field, is it okay to use the name that I usually go by, or should I use my full legal name as it appears on my drivers license or Soc Sec card?
#10 by Jack and Ed on January 17, 2013 - 7:37 pm
Quote
If it’s the name you are commonly and generally known as, you can use that name. Like if you were an actor, you could use your stage name. Archibald Leach could have registered as Cary Grant with no trouble, if that was his inclination.
#11 by Ken L on January 22, 2013 - 10:49 pm
Quote
Hey Jack and Ed,
Love your NAPP articles, training videos and book. I do have a question on one of the matter’s when registering published images. If you have multiple shoots that have been published at different times all within the 3 month grace period, can you register them all together? If so, what would you put as the publication date? If not, would it then be better to register by paper form as to save cost of multiple filings?
#12 by Jack and Ed on January 25, 2013 - 11:04 am
Quote
I would register them and see what happens. Sometimes, like my mom says about chicken soup, it couldn’t hurt. I would be very specific in titling them as the Copyright Office likes it to be clear as to what is being registered. So it might be titled “JackPhotos_1stQuarter2013” and then each file would be titled specifically as to what the images are. The clearer the better. But with published photos, it might be best to call the copyright office and ask them directly. And if I remember what the last Copyright official told me, it would be the oldest date for first publication, as that would be the “first” date of publication. The lesson to really take away is you should try and register all your work as unpublished.
#13 by Ken L on January 25, 2013 - 12:28 pm
Quote
Thank’s Jack,
I live in Maryland and was able to visit the copyright office yesterday to pick there brains. Ed was right, the employees were very nice and informative. Not sure if you and your readers know this, but the Copyright office has a online pilot program that will allow you to register published photos with multiple dates as long as they are in within the same year. While the way you have to file is a little bit tedious, It’s certainly better then having to burn a disk and send in paperwork. And the best part….you guys will love this, it only cost the $35.00 instead of the $65.00 manual form fee. Bonus!!! I would imagine that the processing times would be a lot faster also.
I agree, registering unpublished is alot easier. I only wish Adobe Lightroom had a plugin to export right into to the copyright office…Wait that would be to easy!
Thanks Again
P.S.
If you would like the info on the pilot program let me know and I can send you the info.
#14 by Russ Hartung on July 26, 2013 - 1:54 pm
Quote
Jack and Ed,
I have really learned a lot from your presentations on Kelby Training and I have just discovered your blog. Great presentation style and substance.
One question for your blog – how do you find out if somebody has used your image illegally?
It seems that there must be a way to discover this other than by accident. Is there a way, (any software, etc) to search for your images. (Although if the image is used in packaging, etc, I imagine it might not show up in an online search).
Thanks. Keep up the good work!
Russ Hartung
#15 by Jack and Ed on July 26, 2013 - 5:20 pm
Quote
Some of it is luck, but it’s amazing how many times friends just happen to see images. Happened to me several times.
But there is also Tineye.com and Google Images, where you can upload an image and it does a visual search on the Internet. Both free. Google probably does a deeper search.
Check them both out.
Jack
#16 by Patrice JERVIS on August 15, 2013 - 4:00 pm
Quote
I looked at your videos on kelby training
and could not get an answer
Do you need, in the US a model release if the image is being used exclusively in an online portfolio?
#17 by Jack and Ed on August 19, 2013 - 10:20 am
Quote
Impossible to answer without a lot more facts. The only “quick” answer is “probably, most likely, but not always”. One set of facts does not equal another set of facts. All these type of questions are fact dependent.
Jack
#18 by Patrice Jervis on August 19, 2013 - 11:10 am
Quote
Can I have an on line photography portfolio
If I own a photography business?
And if so would the pictures in my portfolio
Be considered as commercial use?
#19 by Jack and Ed on August 19, 2013 - 11:29 am
Quote
I’d highly recommend to hire an IP lawyer in your state to get a definitive answer, rather than depending on an answer from the Internet.
Especially if you’re concerned.
The issue is, I don’t know what kind of photography business you have. What kind of images you’re talking about. What state you live in. You could be talking about nudes on an S&M site. You could be talking about family portraits. Or something in between. I’ve had people “describe” their images as “They are simply blah, blah blah“.
And then when I see them with my own eyes, I go “OMG!!”
Without seeing specifically the images themselves, it’s impossible to really give an answer.
As the Russian says goes “Seeing it once is worth a thousand explanations”.
I’m not trying to be difficult, but anyone online who gives you an easy answer to a question like that is not really doing you a favor.
I hope you understand.
Jack
#20 by Patrice JERVIS on August 23, 2013 - 2:57 pm
Quote
Ok.
thank you
No more shots without photo a release
CYA or in this case CMA
I will be looking at you all on kelby training
(It is killing my Mobile DATA plan).
But I am loving it!
#21 by john Esposito on October 14, 2013 - 8:06 pm
Quote
I like to take street pictures of wall art. Murals that have been painted on walls and graffiti. In most cases the artist’s name is not there. This may be a stupid questions, but if there is not a artist’s name on the wall, can I sell the pictures I take of them?
Thanks
#22 by Bill May on April 2, 2014 - 5:56 pm
Quote
Just watched your superb videos on Kelby. Thank you.
I didn’t notice any information about getting a mode release “after the fact”, like days or weeks later. As in, before I watched the videos, I didn’t get some releases I should have. Can I get them now?
#23 by Jack and Ed on April 3, 2014 - 7:42 pm
Quote
Hey Bill, Yes, you can get a release now, after the fact. Long after if that’s the case. Once you have a release, it’s released. There is no time limit (as long as you get one before you publish the image).
#24 by Bill May on April 6, 2014 - 4:19 pm
Quote
Thanks for the reply. Your teachings have been enjoyable to watch and VERY enlightening.
#25 by Bill May on April 28, 2014 - 1:18 pm
Quote
Another question for you. Is there it possible that a model release can be rescinded, such as a situation where the material has not yet been published or anything? What if the model is not given a copy of the signed release?
#26 by Jack and Ed on April 28, 2014 - 1:28 pm
Quote
A person can’t rescind a release, once signed, unless there is something written in the release that allows it. I’ve never seen that, but it’s possible. But in normal situations, unless there is a state law states differently in that state, a release is good forever. As far as the model not getting a copy, we need to wait to hear from Ed on that subject.
Jack
#27 by michael on June 29, 2014 - 10:05 am
Quote
This site would benefit from a search function.
#28 by Jim Layes on June 29, 2014 - 7:17 pm
Quote
I have for you and your readers, it’s about people who get photos, both newer and older and then they will mark it as being copyrighted the year they get it, like a old photo from Oct. 1964 and then they will mark it Copyrighted 2004 with their name on it. Also they will add their name like Jack Schmo collection. I know you can not add copyrighted as YOU please just because you get these photos from someone who took them 40/50 years ago.
Thanks. Jim Layes
#29 by George Buggs on November 25, 2014 - 9:35 am
Quote
I want to do one art book featuring only my art photography. Some contain recognizable people as principal subjects. Must I get them to sign releases before I can use their images?
#30 by Jack and Ed on November 25, 2014 - 2:33 pm
Quote
George- I hope you understand that the broad brush of your question is similar to telling a doctor over the phone, “I have a rash on my neck, is it OK?”
There is no way to answer your question without knowing a lot of specifics and seeing the images. A question like yours is very fact and case specific. We recommend not to seek medical advice or legal advice for specific issues over the Internet. You really need to consult directly with a lawyer. The only simple answer I can give you to your question, of do you need to get a release, is “Probably yes and maybe no. It depends.”
Jack
#31 by Jeff on April 8, 2015 - 5:07 pm
Quote
I this watch your show on B&H. My question in how do you register your pictures. I also read taking picture of buildings could also be copyrighted and you need permission. Is this true?
Thnaks
#32 by Jack and Ed on April 10, 2015 - 6:00 pm
Quote
Hi Jeff, You register at the US Copyright Office. The starting page is http://www.copyright.gov As far as buildings, you can usually take the photo, with some exceptions, what you do with it is where the legalities really step in. A lot has to do if the building was trademarked or if the architectural plans were copyrighted. If the building is part of a skyline and you are not emphasizing it, you should be OK, again depending on the final usage. Everything is fact dependent so there is no blanket rule or answer. Hope that helps.
#33 by Stephen on September 11, 2015 - 7:54 pm
Quote
I take travel photography and sometimes when I take a photo of a scene people are in the background. Also, someone owns the houses, boats, cars etc. that are included to make up the photo. Can you guys talk about this type of scenario in your next presentation. I have no idea if I’m free to sell these pictures or not. How about when people photograph barns, someone owns that barn.
I have watched and enjoyed your presentations on KelbyOne and B&H and found the info very interesting. I now ‘get’ the stealing bit but am confused about the ‘owning’ bit.
#34 by Jack and Ed on September 12, 2015 - 11:03 pm
Quote
Stephen, It’s impossible to answer your questions without more information. That’s what makes these issues so complex. “Selling” your images (as opposed to what we prefer – licensing), means a lot of things. Do you mean for an ad, to advertise yourself, for a fine art print, for billboards, for personal use by a HS senior,and on and on? That makes a difference. And are those things incidental and seen from a a public place? Or are they prominent in the image? For some usages, you have no problem, for other usages, you could have major issues. There is no blanket “Yes” or “No” answer. I can give you a big “Maybe” or even a “Perhaps”.
Ed and I will take your suggestions and see if we can cover some specific scenarios in future presentations.
#35 by Stephen on September 13, 2015 - 12:56 am
Quote
Thank you for the reply and I do find this to be highly confusing. I just took a photo of some sailing boats in a harbour. No individual boat is central to the photo, almost any boat would have been okay, but if you take all the boats away (or even just a few in the centre) then there would be no picture. I’ll look forward to your next presentation and if you find that there is enough interest, then I’ll be interested in any light you can provide.
Thanks again.
#36 by Adrian on September 28, 2015 - 7:28 pm
Quote
Hi,
I have a question about artistic photography (even can apply to other types) and the date of creation… If the artistic post processed-retouched image looks quite different that the original shot that came out of the camera, for Copyright registration purposes the date of creation is date you took the picture or the day you actually created the artistic interpretation version on your computer?
I would consider basically 3 levels, (1) images with minimum changes, (2) images with a lot of changes that most people won’t recognize if they see the original side by side and (3) images that you create taking small parts from several images (with different creation dates each) that ended up being a completely NEW “made up” image. I have images in these 3 levels (and perhaps more than 3 levels) that I need to register but the creation date puzzles me since in many cases I’ve created (in my computer) artistic images on year 2014 out of simple images I took back in 2012 and even 2005. Of course all images in question were never registered before!
Thanks,
#37 by Jack and Ed on October 1, 2015 - 11:10 pm
Quote
The date of creation would depend on if it’s a clear derivative or one that creates a new work. To answer your questions-
1) Minimal changes, I wouldn’t re-register.
2) If an average person doesn’t recognize the new work, register the new work.
3) Can’t answer without seeing the work. Use common sense here.
All of these answers are just broad answers without seeing the images. I’ve had several questions where I leaned one way and then I saw the image and it was not what I thought, and I had to change my position.
Jack
#38 by Davidia on October 2, 2015 - 8:39 pm
Quote
I would like to enter some images in a photo contest that requires model releases. One image was taken at Carnivale where full-face masks and costumes are used. I have composited the model into another image at a different location. The other image is of an older woman reaching up to touch a painting of the Virgin Mary in Mexico City. The shot of the woman is from the back and her face is not recognizable. Do I need a model release if the photo contest sponsor uses the image for commercial use, but the person is unidentifiable? I purchased your book to find the answer, but I don’t see where this particular question is answered. I posed this question once before, but did not receive a response. Thank you.
#39 by Jack and Ed on October 2, 2015 - 9:39 pm
Quote
I’ve tried answering questions like yours in the past without seeing the image. After seeing the image, rather than a photographer’s explanation of the image, my answers have many times changed. The best you’ll get on your question is “Maybe.”
Not seeing a face doesn’t mean unrecognizable. If I see the back of my wife’s head in a crowd, I still know it’s her. Someone wearing a particular piece of clothing in a particular place, like your woman reaching for the photo of the Virgin Mary, may be very recognizable in that community. Maybe she does that every day or every Sunday for decades. And maybe not. Even with your costumes photo, what if the people made that costume themselves and it’s unique? I was once in a line in theater and I saw the back of a bald head and said to my wife, “That looks like [the late actor] Peter Boyle.” It was.
Ed has had real cases where a face wasn’t seen, but the model was still deemed recognizable. I believe we do discuss that in our book.
With that said, your photo contest may deem not seeing a face and not having the release is acceptable to them. Or not.
I’m giving you worse case scenarios. Your images may turn out to be OK for this use. Or maybe not. I can’t answer for a contest I don’t know for photos I haven’t seen.
Jack
#40 by Adrian on October 2, 2015 - 9:54 pm
Quote
Jack,
Thanks for your replay… In relation to your first answer to my original question, I wasn’t referring to registering already registered work, instead I was talking about registering work (never registered before) created in one calendar year that is fully developed in another year (E.g. Image taken on 2010 fully edited in 2012).
Thanks.
#41 by Stephen on October 2, 2015 - 10:04 pm
Quote
Based on your reply to Davidia, I understand that if a person in the photograph is recognisable and you use that photo commercially without a model release, you could be in trouble.
What would the position be if I wanted to sell prints of the photo for people to hang on the wall. Could I still be in trouble?
#42 by Jack and Ed on October 2, 2015 - 10:19 pm
Quote
Adrian,
If by fully developed you mean processing a Raw file in something like the Adobe Camera Raw engine in Photoshop or Lightroom, or Capture One, or Canon’s DPP, and you’re adjusting exposure, color, contrast, sharpening, etc. Maybe even some liquify, then I’d say the date of creation is when you took the raw image, not when it was “enhanced”.
But if by “fully developed” you mean you took a piece of this and a piece of that and created something else, then I’d say the latter year when you created that piece.
In the end, the copyright office is leaving that to you. And you have to defend your decision.
Here’s a wrinkle. If I took a B&W image in 1960 and then “colorized” it and cropped it in 1990 (when the copyright laws changed more to our advantage), I’d say in my personal opinion it was a new piece and put the date of creation as 1990. Let a judge decide if that’s proper. If I just left it as is without changes, it would be hard for me to argue it was created in 1990 rather than 1960.
This stuff can be confusing and can contain grey areas. It’s always case and fact specific. One size, one answer, does not fit all. And not seeing the images means it’s a shot in the dark trying to give you an answer (which would be just my opinion, not legal advice).
Jack
#43 by Jack and Ed on October 2, 2015 - 10:30 pm
Quote
Stephen,
All right, something I can answer without a “maybe”!
Yes, if you use a photo of a person who is recognizable, commercially, without a release you could be in serious trouble.
With that said, what is “commercial”? Believe it or not, that can be confusing at times. Ed and I can write a whole chapter on what is commercial and what is not and what might be something in between.
As far as selling a photo as a piece of fine art to hang on a wall, I would say it is “most likely” you are OK. But again, that’s answering without seeing the image and rest of the facts. If you made 10 or 50 prints and sold them, most likely not an issue. If you made 1000 or more and sold them, then it’s no longer fine art and can be considered commercial use. Then you’re in trouble. Also, if it’ a photo of a person in an embarrassing position, ridicules them, or is a sensitive issue, it could be a problem, depending on which state or country you’re in. In the US, what passes in one state may be big trouble in another state. Model releases and Rights of Privacy laws vary from state to state.
Jack
#44 by Davidia on October 2, 2015 - 11:29 pm
Quote
Thank you for your response. I think that sums it up in a nutshell. Can you direct me to where that is covered in your book? I must have missed it. Davidia
#45 by Mirja Henriksson on October 5, 2015 - 10:15 pm
Quote
Hej Mark s Jonhson told me take contact with you….i am Marks student…my problem is the people steel my photosomposites or gifs compasites on my page and put them on they own page as they own…i byu all my things from Sutterstock, digital juice,videoblocks.frencs kiss a.s.o,,so i have licenses..
i try to write to google+ but never find right number of stolen photo,,so i cannot tell them,,,,i wrote to shuttertock.They had copyright to everything on photocomposite which was stolen now. i have not got answer,yet…i feel so helpless ..even if i write my name on gifs so one has clippt them so small and put together 4 gif,If i ask person take away my photo they are mean and do not take it away´ This destroy my life. .What can i do? How i find number to google+ to stolen photo ? sorry my very bad google+ adress but i was afraid go from this place to get right adress ,only one googe works in this PC…OORVOKKI is my google+ name .Can you ,please give me some advice?
Kind Regaards Mirja
#46 by Jack and Ed on October 6, 2015 - 6:23 pm
Quote
Marja, Don’t understand exactly what you want. Plus without seeing the images and without knowing where you’re located also makes an answer difficult. So a general answer- If people are stealing your work and posting them on their website, your option is to send a DMCA takedown letter to their ISP if you only want the work taken down. Or for other options, contact a lawyer.
#47 by Mirja Henriksson on October 9, 2015 - 1:03 pm
Quote
Hej, I live in Sweden…and as i told i byu my photos and videoclipps and make photocomposite as hobby ,,no profit….i put my creations on google+. People has taking my creationer and put to their side as their own…and when i ask them take them down, they laugh at me and keep them…
Now has one taking a lot ..most has she cut small pieces and put together but one is big and she has put it private.So Shutterstoch kan not see it..they got message the photo is not there, but it is there..i am this persons friend so i can see it.
I do not know who is DMCA? Can they do something for person who lives in Sweden and i do not have copyrights , only licences…what kind of laweyr i need? I already put so much money to my hobby so to save my peace i take contact with the laweyr, if that is my last way. Lawyer for a hobbiest who make no money..it is really hard… Is it possible here in Sweden that lawyer can do something? i take it very hard, really hard when people take my composite as their own…we have a good system share on google+.
Why i do no find right adress to stolen photocomposite so i can ask google+ take it down…?And why it can be so that people put stolen thing private so those who has copyright like Shutterstock can not see it?
Kind regards Mirja Henriksson
#48 by Jack and Ed on October 10, 2015 - 11:38 am
Quote
Hi Mirja, We don’t have any lawyers in Sweden, but we suggest you contact 1) the closest Law School, 2) the local bar association or 3) ask a reputable modeling agency for a referral to an attorney who knows something about photography. In that order of preference. Closest law school and the person who teaches intellectual property in Sweden are your best bets.
DMCA is a US law that makes Internet Providers (IP) to take down copyrighted content from their servers. You should Google for “DMCA takedown letters” and you’ll get the information you need. You do not have to be a US citizen or resident
Hope that helps.
Jack
#49 by Gary Schubert on May 16, 2016 - 12:03 am
Quote
Why does this artist get away with copying other artists’ work?
http://www.vice.com/read/has-celebrity-photographer-tyler-shields-ripped-off-other-artists-on-his-way-to-fame
#50 by Jack and Ed on May 16, 2016 - 6:58 pm
Quote
Gary, A great and simple question that requires a long, complex explanation. So we’re working on a blog piece to answer your question. Should be up in a day or two.