Seb Rogers: mountain bike photography

Another bite at the Apple (TM)

Regular readers might have noticed that I'm fairly keen on photographers retaining copyright in the images they take. It's yours automatically by law and there are good reasons not to give it away. And here's a case in point.

I was contacted by Apple recently about an image of downhill and freeride legend Andrew Shandro of mine that they'd found on my portfolio site. It was taken a few years ago for an editorial shoot. They were looking for some new imagery to use on their site and in-store and decided that this particular shot would fit the bill perfectly. Was it available for use, they wanted to know?

Within a short space of time we'd agreed a price (no, I'm not being paid in iMacs). I even managed to track down Shandro at the Sea Otter and he, always the consummate pro, agreed to sign a retrospective model release so that Apple could use the image. A model release indicates that the subject of a photo consents for that image to be used commercially. It's not necessary for editorial use and, in the UK, isn't always needed for commercial use but it's good practice to have one available. In fact, Apple indicated they wouldn't be able to proceed without one.

Do I need to point out that I would never have been able to make this sale if I'd sold all rights to this image at the time of the original shoot? No? Thought not.

Anyhoo, here's the first use of the pic in question. It may well pop up again in various Apple-related scenarios over the next couple of years.

The guys at Apple, incidentally, were a pleasure to deal with - utterly professional from beginning to end. Like most photographers these days, I've become used to fielding queries that are variations on the 'we really like this picture but don't have a budget' theme. It's nice to be reminded there are still businesses out there that genuinely value photography.

Daily Wail nicks pics

In a brilliant display of high-handed thievery, the Daily Wail (sic)* has pinched a documentary film-maker's photos from a Twitter page, published them without a credit and then claimed that it was okay to do so because they were 'in the public domain'. Full story here - thanks to Mike Davis for the heads-up.

Which begs the obvious question: if someone were to lift content from the Mail's own site and *cough* 're-purpose' it elsewhere, would the Mail's lawyers take the same view? I think we should be told.

* so-called because of its editorial 'we're doomed' stance on, well, just about everything. The sky's falling on our heads, etc.

Democracy in action

A while ago Honda ran some ads with the strap 'isn't it nice when things just work?' For a change I'm feeling that way about British democracy this morning. Yes, really.

Yesterday I spent an hour or so emailing every single Liberal Democrat MP (there are quite a few) to explain my concerns about clause 43 in the proposed Digital Economy Bill. It was essential to get the Lib Dems on board, the Conservatives having already come out strongly against clause 43 and the Labour government seemingly implacable in the face of concerted pressure to drop an ill thought-out and badly worded piece of draft legislation. I'm certain I wasn't the only one filling parliamentary inboxes yesterday lunchtime.

A couple of hours later I received this ever so slightly cryptic response from Lembit Opik: 'I agree and it's been fixed'.

Now call me a cynic, but when an MP says it's been fixed I have to wonder... fixed to his (or her) satisfaction... or really fixed?

But he was right. Clause 43 is no more. Democracy in action...

It's not over yet, but the immediate prospect of photographers losing their own (intellectual) property through poorly thought out legislation has receded. That should be enough to brighten anyone's morning.

Digital Economy Bill turns into public farce

The British government's Digital Economy Bill continues its stuttering progress into the statute books. Meanwhile, the government has been caught stealing the BBC's copyright, only for the Tories to gleefully do exactly the same. An image of the character Gene Hunt from 80s BBC series Ashes to Ashes was used by the Labour party... without seeking permission from the copyright owner, in this case the BBC. Seeing an opportunity to make political hay, the Conservative party used exactly the same image... without permission. And just to add to the irony the BBC - which supports the principle of orphaned works in the DEB - is furious with both parties.

These are the people currently making decisions about intellectual property law that will affect us all. Scary, huh?

More here.

Permission to use photo not pictured... 

Photographers may lose rights in UK Digital Economy Bill

The US experiment with legislation legitimising the free use of 'orphaned' photographs has, inevitably, made its way across the pond. Parliament will be voting on the Digital Economy Bill fairly soon. I'll spare you the tedious details except to point out that, in what amounts to possibly the biggest change in copyright law for a very long time, the bill as it stands makes it easy for image users to effectively 'create' orphaned works and therefore circumvent paying the photographer. 

That's a crude summary, admittedly. But the prospect of most of the images currently floating around as ones and zeroes on the web being, in effect, fair game should send a shiver down the spine of any photographer - whether you earn a living from your images or not.

It's not too late to write to your MP - and those helpful people at Copyright Action have created a template which both explains the problems with the bill as it stands and lets your MP know how you feel. I'll be writing to my MP - I suggest you do, too.

The end of copyright law as we know it?

Update 12th May 2008: I'm far from the only photographer concerned about this. For an informed view from the perspective of a clued-up north American photographer, go here. It's a long read, but it's well argued and sets out in detail the potential repercussions of the proposed bills as they stand. There are also some well-reasoned counter-arguments at the end of the post, with some informed individuals cautioning that the initial knee-jerk reaction from many photographers is based on incorrect assumptions. I suggest you read it and make up your own mind. However the checks and balances are worked out, the bill still represents a fundamental shift in copyright law which, on the face of it, will do photographers no favours.

The Orphan Works Bill currently making its way through the US Senate is something that's likely to affect every photographer, musician, videographer, writer and artist on the planet... if it's passed into law. That means you. And by 'affect', I don't mean in a good way.

Yeah, I know. Seb's banging on about copyright again, yaddayadda blahblahblah. But this is something you really should pay attention to, because although - as with all legislative bureacracy - it's not exactly light entertainment catching up on the details, the potential consequences could blow a big hole in your world. Not to mention your bank balance.

Here's the gist: if this bill is passed, any image, anywhere in the world, that isn't registered with a US-based commerical copyright registry, is liable to be defined as an 'orphan' (in other words, ownership can't be proved). Under the proposed terms of the bill, such orphans are effectively free for use. Some photographers have called the bill a thieves' charter.

Under exisiting international copyright law you don't have to do a thing to protect your creative works; the copyright is automatically yours. Under the proposed changes you will only have the full protection afforded by copyright if you register with one of the privately-run, US-based copyright registries.

In effect this means that the vast majority of photographic imagery - whether pro or amateur - could be up for grabs, for free, by corporate America.

And yes, that potentially includes all your images on your Flickr account. Heck, it could include the whole of Flickr.

There's more to it than that, and I suggest you follow this link to find out more. Or listen to this podcast:

If this isn't bad enough in its global implications, whatever passes into law in the US is bound to affect the upcoming review of copyright laws in the UK. And, er, did I mention it's not likely to be in a good way?

Payback time

Apparently I've developed a bit of a reputation - and not necessarily the right kind. Fellow blogger and rider Cass Gilbert commented on a shoot recently that he enjoyed reading my occasional rants. Erm, excuse me? Oh, he must've meant this one. Or maybe this one. And, er, this one (which is probably my favourite because it contains a video clip of someone else out-ranting yours truly, for a change).

Ah. Oh. Oops.

Well, I'm glad that it's entertaining. But here's the thing: photography as a viable business has never been more threatened. I've covered some of the reasons for this state of affairs plenty of times before, but here's the short version: too many photographers with little or no understanding of copyright and licensing issues, all competing for exposure in a market increasingly populated by clued-up image buyers who exploit that ignorance.

It's worth repeating: copyright is a worldwide legal convention that allows photographers - whether amateur or pro - to control how, where and when their work is used. It's yours, automatically. You don't have to - and nor should you - relinquish the rights to your images in return for nothing. But that won't stop some unscrupulous organisations from trying.

No, it's not because they generously want to give you a rosy glow of satisfaction from seeing your work used. It's because they can make money out of it. And by persuading you to hand over the rights to your images, they don't have to give a penny of that money back to you.

There are signs, though, that the tide may be turning. Pro-Imaging, a mailing list group for pros, has launched a campaign aimed at naming and shaming rights-grabbing photo competitions. There's a wealth of other useful information on the site too, including a very good explanation of why you should steer clear of these contests.

Current worst offender on the rights-grabbing comp front is a setup I've written about before. The rules of this competition are so mind-bendingly biased agasint the photographer that I'm staggered anyone bothers to enter, but judging by the competition site's front page there are plenty of people willing to hand over their intellectual property in exchange for, well, nothing at all. Go figure.

Second site to attempt to shift the balance back in favour of photographers is a new spin-off of pro photographer group EPUK. Copyright Action is a site that aims to collect all the information photographers need about copyright and licensing in one place. There's information about how copyright works, a forum to report instances of copyright abuse or rights-grabbing, an FAQs section and, well, just about everything you're likely to need to know.

Copyright and licensing issues aren't exactly sexy, but it's never been more important to be clued up. Because if you aren't, and your images ever make it off your hard drive out into the real world, you're at risk of being ripped off. Pro or amateur, it makes no difference - someone out there wants the rights to your images, and they don't want to pay you anything at all for them.

Here endeth today's rant...

Coypright myths: the blind leading the blind

Given the brouhaha surrounding file sharing, pirated DVDs and the like, you'd be forgiven for thinking that there'd be fairly widespread understanding of copyright. But, as any working photographer will tell you, the opposite seems to be the case. Widely misunderstood and abused, copyright law is actually pretty simple in its application. It's designed to give protection to creators of artistic works (yes, you with the dSLR and the flickr account, that means you) and allow those creators to control how their works are used. Doesn't matter if you're a pro or not, the law applies equally to everyone. And, for once, it's on your side.

Disclaimer: I have no legal training (as will, I'm sure, become painfully obvious to anyone reading this who does). What follows is an explanation based on my personal experience and understanding of copyright law as it applies in the UK. Full details of the UK Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 can be found here.

Here's how it works: you press the button, you own the copyright in the resulting image. The only notable exception is if you're pressing the button as part of your job as an employee, in which case your employer owns the copyright. Otherwise, you need do nothing to assert your ownership of copyright - it's yours automatically under law. The principle is broadly similar in most countries worldwide, although there are minor differences in how the law is applied.

For a simple explanation of UK copright law, see here. And in the meantime, here are some common copyright myths, busted:

1. If I take a picture of someone, that person owns the copyright
False. For images that will be used commercially, it's often a good idea for the photographer to ask the subject to sign a model release form. But this simply indemnifies the photographer and their client(s) from any damages or claims by the model arising from use of the image. The photographer owns the copyright.

2. Buildings and private land are copyright and I can't photograph them without the owner's permission
Copyright doesn't apply in the same way to buildings, sculptures or views (for example), so don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Whilst an architect may own the copyright in the original plans for a building, the physical form itself is on public display and may be freely photographed. If you're standing on public land - for example a public highway - there's nothing anyone can legally do to prevent you from using your camera. If you're on privately owned land, the landowner is entitled to impose restrictions on certain activities. This will often include photography, and is more likely to be enforced if the rent-a-cop mob think you're using a 'professional' camera. They can ask you to stop and / or leave, but that's about it.

3. I have to say that my picture is copyright, otherwise it doesn't apply
Nope. Your pictures are your copyright, regardless of whether there's a copyright symbol attached to them or not. You pressed the button, you own it. Simple.

4. Pictures on the internet are in the public domain and are fair game
Nuh-uh. Remember the principle that whoever pressed the button owns the copyright? Just because there's no copyright symbol or name attached to an image, it doesn't mean that it's available for free use. Always assume the opposite - unless clearly invited to make free use of an image, the copyright belongs to somebody. Personally, I'm a great believer in 'do as you would be done by' in these cases. Don't steal other people's images - next time it might be you!

5. If I commission a photographer to take some pictures, I own the copyright
Not unless there's a written contract stating that the photographer transfers ownership of copyright. And even then, most photography buyers don't need copyright, they just think they do. This is where licensing comes in. A license gives the image buyer rights to use the photographer's image(s) in certain circumstances, which can be agreed by both the photographer and the buyer. But by retaining copyright, the photographer keeps the right to control use of his images, including the right to use them in his own portfolio or for promotional purposes. Rule of thumb for aspiring pros: don't relinquish copyright, even though many clients will insist on it. They probably don't need it... but you most certainly do.

If you don't earn a living from your pictures, you may not see the point in understanding how copyright applies to you. But consider this. The explosion in dSLR ownership along with the growth of microstock and photo-sharing sites means that almost everyone with a camera has the potential to earn money from their photography: the boundaries between pro and amateur are blurring. Blue-chip companies have taken to trawling sites like flickr looking for imagery that they can use. And they do so because they know they can obtain it cheaply or for free, partly because so many photographers are ignorant of copyright and how it applies to them.

Of watermarks and the web

You can't fail to have noticed the new watermark on the picture in the post below. Which, in fact, is the point. But it deserves a little explanation.

Over the past few weeks I've been trying to work out how to prevent the images I post on this site appearing in places that they really shouldn't (because they have already, despite my best efforts). And the conclusion I've come to is that I can't. Although it's unethical, not to say illegal, to rip off my work and post it (or publish it, in whatever form) elsewhere, there simply isn't a practical way for me to stop it happening.

But I need to do something to discourage it, because controlling the supply of my pictures is the only way I can protect my income.

So the next best thing I can do is to make my work easily identifiable - which means a big, legible watermark in a postion that can't easily be cropped out. Up to now I've tried to put the watermark somewhere that it won't interfere, but from now on it's going to be right in the middle of the action. To make it a little easier on the eye I've changed to a slightly less utilitarian font, and it also means I can make the linked pop-up images a reasonable size.

It's not ideal, but it's the only way I can think of discouraging the chancers and copyright thieves of this world short of not posting any pictures at all. Which, when you think about it, would make a bit of a mockery of a photography blog.

Anyhow, I hope you can understand my dilemma, and that it doesn't interfere too much with your enjoyment of the pictures. On with the show...

The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

I try to keep the posts on here fairly light-hearted, because... well, because bikes and photography are both fun... right?

But I thought this was worth an airing. The pot of gold at the end of the photographic rainbow, y'see, is disappearing fast. Professional photography is (quietly, for the most part, because photographers tend to be a solitary bunch and aren't given much to stamping their feet and waving their arms around - at least, not in public) in crisis. It's a situation that's been developing for some time, and it's not over yet. But anyone with any interest in earning money from their photography - whether full-time or on an occasional basis - should take a look at this (thanks to Chris Ratcliff for bringing it to my attention), and some of the responses it generated. It's a long and sometimes depressing read, but it's worth the effort.

Right, as you were. Normal service will be resumed shortly...