Jump to content

All Activity

This feed auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Thank you Bill, I´m kind of addicted to it already. Luckly I've been working out and I'm fit to carry it.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Absolutely beautiful set Aquinaldo! Your efforts at carrying that big lens were worth it.
  5. Last week
  6. Yikes, I don't even want to imagine that...
  7. crowecg


    My guess is a beer can with the top cut of used as a vase, or perhaps just a vase decorated like a beer can. if it is the first, I wouldn’t mind helping making a few more.😁
  8. The rain is not hard to find there, but the little bursts of sunshine make it special. I did visit there over 25 years ago, but can’t remember taking many photos. I suspect it was too overcast most of the time - I think it was around Easter that I was there.
  9. in the UK, they usually stunk of something worse🤢 as late night drinkers would wait inside for the taxi they had used it to call.
  10. Neither Victoria or Tasmania had much of an iron/steel industry worth getting excited over, but both had vast stretches of old-growth hardwood Eucalyptus forests that apparently needed destroying, hence wood was a readily available resource for building things out of during the early -mid 20th Century.
  11. Interestingly when the NYT approached me to do that commission they expressly said upfront that copyright would be shared between us, so kudos to them for being upfront with that.
  12. I believe that the key paragraph in this legislation is (e), which basically sys that the rights assigned in the other paragraphs fall away subject to agreement by both commissioner and undertaker. This is the missing part for me in my dealing with this estate agent and one that I need to rectify somehow so that there is no misunderstanding in the future. I think I know how to do this. If I create two different products for the same service, one where copyright remains with me and another where copyright is transferred, there can be no quibble about it down the line.
  13. "Going forward, it would be a good idea to include in your contract specific wording giving you the copyright in commissioned works, at least until the law changes. This wording should be set out up front - including it on the invoice would be too late. You may want to get the wording from a lawyer, as there may be legal pitfalls to avoid." -Anthony IMO, Save time, money and aggravation and walk away from this particular incident. Properly composed, legally valid language in the contract can protect you next time.
  14. Hugh_3170


    Reflections from behind, plus a flat advertising sheet/cut out lit by spotlights that represent the Heineken? Colourful and well spotted - whatever it really all is.
  15. A typical Japanese telephone booth since the 80s looks as if it were made with four windowpanes which will almost never fail to stink of nicotine and tar inside. 😩
  16. I read this the same as Anthony, if the estate agent paid you to take the photos, they own them outright and you have no future recourse to them. In fact you may be in breach of copyright if you subsequently post them here. on the other hand the pictures you took for the NYT article, you could resell them to a real estate guy, but not to another newspaper. I’m not sure how you would work around this to retain copyright in a commissioned work. Perhaps you would have to sell “marketing services” and then subcontract yourself to provide photographs as part of the services. It is a bit of a legal minefield really and doesn’t look too fair to your position. You will need some local legal advise to work this out, perhaps subscribing to a local professional photographers association might be a way to avoid paying too much to a lawyer.
  17. Luc de Schepper


    This one is a sort of optical illusion. It's not a multiple exposure. Also not tricked in post processing. The beer can is not real as in 3D (hint).
  18. Thanks all! Hugh, I would like that too, I remember watching the Apollo moon landing as a child. Fascinating!
  19. I fully agree with Akira, nice image.
  20. The ones we used to have in South Africa were the most hideously ugly steel grey boxes. At some point in the 80's they began making them into orange pod-like things that were a bit easier on the eye but they offered much less privacy.
  21. Love the entire atmosphere and the blue-green tonality.
  22. Wow, this is a truly enjoyable thread! All images are fine representations of attractive telephone booths. Thank you for sharing!
  23. Shot in Roppongi area in Tokyo. Sigma fp and Sigma 45/2.8.
  24. Thanks Anthony for your expert input here. It is a fairly annoying situation as far as our legal rights are concerned as South African photographers. For me the main annoyance is that the commissioning was for the purposes of selling the property for that agent only, not for them to allow onward transmission for a different purpose and for a different party. I would most certainly have charged a different rate had I wanted to relinquish those rights. I will make very sure that in future all my customers know that if they wish to purchase copyright they will be doing so at a higher rate. I have put wording to this effect up on my website now but I need to figure out a way of including this as a digital acknowledgement prior to them placing an order on my billing site. Generally we don't work to contracts here, but I think that in light of this I need to review my policy. The problem is that at the lower end of the market (where I work) you are dealing with people who are not sophisticated in legal matters. As soon as you ask them to sign or agree to legal things which they may not fully understand (especially regarding copyrights) you run the risk of scaring them off. I don't worry so much about the loss of income where these infringements happen as I don't assign a huge value to them anyway. It's just that when people ask for a finger and then end up taking the whole arm that I feel jerked around.
  25. I am not a South African lawyer, so please do not rely on this as legal advice, but here are my thoughts. The South African wording you quote is very similar to the wording in the UK Copyright Act (breach of copyright?), but the UK Act does not include the words "subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)". The UK Copyright Act 1956 was repealed in 1989; current UK law awards copyright to the creator even when the work has been commissioned by a third party (various exceptions apply). So under UK law you would be entitled to the copyright in the photographs unless you had agreed otherwise. I have tried to find what is meant by "subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)", but none of the online resources I have found discuss these words at all. All say simply that the copyright in commissioned works belongs to the person commissioning, in this case the Estate Agent. I find it hard to understand how the words "subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)" would apply in practice, but it does seem that in any event they would only apply in the case of a proprietor of a "newspaper, magazine or similar periodical". That does not seem to cover an Estate Agent publishing property particulars. So subsection (b) would probably not be relevant. This is consistent with the various online comments which state that the commissioner, not the photographer, owns the copyright to commissioned photographs. So I fear that in the present case you do not own the copyright in the photographs, and the Estate Agent does. This is obviously very disappointing, and means that suing for breach of copyright would be risky. There are currently legislative proposals in South Africa to change copyright law, and one of the proposed changes would be to reverse paragraph (c), so that the photographer, not the commissioner, would own the copyright. I do not know how this would affect photographs made before the new law came into force, but I would expect that the change would only apply to photographs made after the law changed. As I said, I am not a South African lawyer, and before making a decision you may want to consult a South African lawyer. Alternatively, there may be some South African photographers' society or group which has issued guidance, or could answer questions. This must be a problem that many other photographers have faced. Going forward, it would be a good idea to include in your contract specific wording giving you the copyright in commissioned works, at least until the law changes. This wording should be set out up front - including it on the invoice would be too late. You may want to get the wording from a lawyer, as there may be legal pitfalls to avoid.
  26. Yes, going her for the libellous screen shot may have less litigation risk for you than a case about the copyright issue.
  27. There might be, but my feeling is that even if I am within my rights to charge her for the ongoing use of the images, her vindictive actions may end up causing me more damage in the end than I would obtain recompense. I do have a screenshot of the libellous review she put on a consumer affairs website (which they wisely removed after I alerted them to it), so I am more inclined to go after her for that than for the use of the images. The only thing is, the law doesn't always get applied the way we think it would. I know from first hand experience in dealing with my father's estate that even when you have a rock solid case, getting it in front of a judge isn't always as straight-forward as it sounds in the movies.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.