 Duane |
Photographers Ownership vs Disclosure Law What recourse does a photographer have in protecting his ownership of digital images or photographs, if it conflicts with state law regarding open disclosure? Since Dec. 2004, I have taken digital images for the local Fire Department so that they have images to assist them in training, for their records, for evidence, for their web page, etc. and I perform this as a public service for the Fire Department and for the community. I am not 'officially' on the Fire Department as a full-time or volunteer and am not compensated for my services, which was not a problem for me, because I was willing to help them out. To somewhat protect myself, the images are placed on a CD-ROM along with a report and given to the department. In the report I have a section: 'Ownership/Buyers Rights' where I state that I own the images and are giving 'first time rights' to the department. The 'first time rights' will normally give the department permission to use the images for training purposes with in the department, for their web page, for the investigation, and for a criminal court proceeding and it also states that they have no right or authority to provide or sell any images to a third party. I also have tried to protect myself by compressing the files at the highest compression and keeping the image size to a 640x480 which I understand is sufficient for viewing on a monitor, but not making prints. Recently during a discussion with the Fire Chief, since my images are in the department's files, by state law if an attorney, insurance company, etc requests a copy of that file, he has to provide the images and this is somewhat hard to accept, knowing that a third party is using my time, experience, equipment, and experience and not having to compensate me and I also believe that if a third party desires to have images, then they can have their own staff or hire it to be performed for them. I considered putting a copyright water mark on the images, but felt it would not be of any value, since the images are still be provided to a third party? Some areas that I have considered: 1.) Quit providing the service to the department Would like to hear some other thoughts from photographers. Best regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Hey Duane: Your first line of defense is to formally copyright the images. Get the form and scoop on that at copyright.gov. Second, you need a before-the-fact written agreement with your client(s) whether they're the fire department or anyone else. One that clearly spells out the usage rights BEFORE you shoot, and they agree to in writing BEFORE you load a roll of film or pop a pixel. Essentially, the info you're giving them on CD at the time you deliver the photos, is nothing more than what lawyers call "a glove-box warranty or statement". While it may be informative, contractually, in my view, it's meaningless. And notwithstanding whomever gets your images, if they're supoeneaed for use in a judicial proceeding, under what's known as "The Best Evidence Rule", they can't be admitted as evidence of anything without your testimony substantiating what they depict, how they were obtained, why, etc. So, they're essentially useless in court. What I'm saying here Duane, is you really need to tighten up your business practices and clarify your understandings, in advance, in writing. The rest of what you mentioned, while kind of useful, is superfluous unless you first register and second agree to usage and payment of fees, if any. Providing someone with a contact sheet these days, without more, just grants them an unspoken license to scan and duplicate whatever images are on it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
BTW, I've been at this biz a long long time. I'm unaware of any law, at least in the States of Illinois, New York, New Jersey or California, referred to as some kind of mandatory or open "state disclosure laws". If you've got a citation to a legal authority, like a state statute, I'll be glad to take a look at it. Insofar as I'm aware, under the U.S. Constitution, no state shall deprive any individual of property without adequate compensation or at least due process of law. M.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Duane |
Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply -- I used a poor choice of words when I said a state disclosure law; when in reality I should have said for the 'discovery process' in a criminal or civl case. Even when I was in law enforcement (1986) in the 20+ years I took photos in this area, I never ran into this problem, since my town is small (9000) Unfortunately, I photographed a early morning fire that turned out to be an arson. So obviously the State Fire Marshall, the homeowners insurance company, and local police & fire have the images and they are not using them 'for profit' but are using them for fair use. Even if I said no, they'd get a court order to provide the images and subpeona me into court for giving testimony to the fact I took the pictures, was at the scene, what I saw, etc. Even though I enjoy taking all types of photos and helping out our small department, it's not worth the headache for me to go down this path. I think the answer is obvious, to avoid a situation like this, I need to quit taking photos for the fire and police departments. Thanks again. Best regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
As I started to go into earlier but thought better of it at the time, if they subpoena the pix, they can't be admitted without the testimony of the person who took them, under the best evidence rule. So, that makes you....(yep, you got it) an expert witness and experts get good bucks for testifying, in advance of trial, I might add. Yeah, I agree, quit taking pix for police and fire departments. do it for a local paper instead. ;>)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||