Copyright Question.

[Animalnutty]

Hi,

Just wondered if anyone may be able to answer this for me. I sent a picture of a nearly finished piece with my copyright logo at the bottom of the pic for approval to a customer last week.

I finished and sent the piece to a customer and she received today and sent an email saying how much she loved it. She has sent me a FB request sometime ago at the beginning of ordering and I had coincidentally accepted a week or so ago.

Just had a peek on her FB page and there is a picture of my piece, with a description saying hand made pendant in memory of ............ and with the copyright of her friend who took the picture at the bottom. Now looking at the friends FB page he has a few pictures with his copyright on it - thought not sure if pro or not as the actual picture of the piece is certainly less pro looking that mine (and I'm not great by any stretch) though appreciate silver is hard to picture if not used to it.

Anyway, it looks very much like it is his piece as no mention of the copyright being of the picture and with no mention of it being made by me, is it OK to photograph someone elses work and put a copyright on it without mentioning the copyright of the work is theirs. I have a feeling not - but been a while since I have looked into copyright. Something I feel strongly about and will never copy in any way shape or form, anyone elses work and expect the same.

Any thoughts on this please. Thank you

[trialuser]

My thoughts, as you asked, but I am not an expert.
It seems from your description that he is simply claiming copyright for his photo(s) - which seems fair enough?
Not that he needs to, one of the Berne principles is that it automatically exists.
I may have misinterpreted what you meant though?
Cheers.

[Animalnutty]

Thanks for that - it comes across very much as if it is his work, not that he is copyrighting the photo as he has started this thread on the hand made piece and attached his name to it :-) I always thought that if a photo of any kind of art work was taken, then you needed to give credit to the person that produces the work. Certainly if I use a photo and produce artwork from it - I need to give credit to the photographer

[Aurarius]

I always thought that if a photo of any kind of art work was taken, then you needed to give credit to the person that produces the work.

I've not found that to be the case personally. The copyright of photos (taken by someone else) of some of my work (in another craft) is owned by Getty Images. Even though I made the artefacts shown in the images I would in fact have to pay Getty Images if I wanted to make public use of those images.

[Animalnutty]

I've not found that to be the case personally. The copyright of photos (taken by someone else) of some of my work (in another craft) is owned by Getty Images. Even though I made the artefacts shown in the images I would in fact have to pay Getty Images if I wanted to make public use of those images.

But going by that, I could take a photo of your photos and out my copyright at the bottom of it - which isn't the case - I could take a photo of your work, but I would have to say that the original photo (artwork) was by so and so. Just reading through some stuff now that does back up my thoughts on it. Would still be interested to hear others opinions on it.

Apart from anything else, this chap has made it look like it is his work - I only know that he didn;t make the piece because it's mine, other wise, from the post,I would have assumed he made the work

[Aurarius]

[QUOTE=Animalnutty;67078] I could take a photo of your work, but I would have to say that the original photo (artwork) was by so and so. [QUOTE]
Getty Images makes no mention of who made the artefacts shown in their photos of my work.

[Animalnutty]

Actually, reading through a bit more (getting fuzzy brained) if the lady who had bought it took a photo and wanted to claim rights to the photo she could because the piece belonged to her, but him doing it could be an infringement of copyright.

It's done in a way that is very unclear and am struggling to make sense of the rights and wrongs of it. I think it's more the way it has been done that seems a little off as with the written comments with it and subsequent comments, it looks very much like the pendant is his work.

[pearlescence]

Hi
There are two separate issues here. Your design right in the pendant (which, incidentally may rest with the commissioner and not you depending on your contract arrangements) and the separate copyright in the photo
copyright is simply the right to make copies.
So the photog has the right to stop you making a copy of the photo he took of the pendant, and you can stop him making copies of the pendant
(But those who are pointing out that in the UK the photog does not need to claim copyright, it is there automatically by law. The USA follows a different system which is why you see those circle things)
If you think about it, if every time someone took a photo of that pendant while the owner was wearing it and had to check with you whether that was okay, it would be totally unworkable

[Animalnutty]

Hi
There are two separate issues here. Your design right in the pendant (which, incidentally may rest with the commissioner and not you depending on your contract arrangements) and the separate copyright in the photo
copyright is simply the right to make copies.
So the photog has the right to stop you making a copy of the photo he took of the pendant, and you can stop him making copies of the pendant
(But those who are pointing out that in the UK the photog does not need to claim copyright, it is there automatically by law. The USA follows a different system which is why you see those circle things)
If you think about it, if every time someone took a photo of that pendant while the owner was wearing it and had to check with you whether that was okay, it would be totally unworkable

Hiya,

Thank you I understand, I think. The design is definitely mine not the commissioners and no quibbles there, though that is an interesting thought, which I hadn't considered. My issue here was not the photo being taken, and understand it would be completely impossible to control that (nor would I want to or care about that, in fact as others have said it is nice that people want to take a picture of your work) my issue was that he took a photo, wrote a description about the piece and put his copyright on it - it all seemed very much like it was his piece Especially given comments afterwards that people thought that and he didn't correct them.

My real thoughts were about given that he was taking the picture of the pendant, writing about the pendant with his copyright on it, did he not have credit the person whos, 'painting, jewellery, sculpture' etc that he was taking the picture of (given that he was very aware of the situation). This wasn't a photo that was taken and shown off in another photographic scenario either - so the people replying would have not known he was a photographer.

I do know that copyright is a tricky one, and would have no intention about doing anything about it, other than if I see someone doing something that is unfair - I'm more of a speak to the person directly rather than just ignore it! So have done that, but just wanted to really understand the rights and wrongs of it. Though it does seem that everyone as ever with copyright, has different views of it.

Thanks again everyone