Stupid question - but one to which I do not know the answer!

[JSR]

= if david beckam walks past you and you take a picture of him - you may own the photo but you do not own the right to use your picture of him to promote your goods

How does it work with a newspaper then - they take celeb photos and then use them to promote their product?

No, they take photographs to illustrate news articles. It's the article that sells the paper, not the photo. The press are allowed certain liberties which the regular commercial business does not. They also have teams of legal bods to be sure they're safe, or who can fight their corner when they're not. Do you?

How many times have we read "Celebrity X sues The Sun for £10m!" The newspaper can afford £10m - such a case will not prevent them from using the image or misrepresenting the celebrity. They may have to pay out £10m but they probably made £20m in newspaper sales. Would the same thing apply to us?

It's like with logos. If you take a photo of your friend on a busy street and, in the far distance, there's a shop selling Coca-Cola with the logo on their door then you won't be sued by Coca-Cola. But if you take a photo of the Coca-Cola logo from that door and print it as the primary image on your mug, you will be sued.

Copyright isn't as simple as it seems - it's a whole subject called "Intellectual Property" (read: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/). For me, copyright isn't something to be infringed "if I think I can get away with it". I just consider how I would like being the victim if I.P. theft. I wouldn't like it, so I don't do it. There are hundreds of shysters on a certain popular auction site who clearly don't have the same conscience. But, at the end of the day, someone who flouts IP isn't someone who's going to be around very long (they're only in it for a quick buck). I see my business lasting the years, not just a few weeks.

[Robert]

Whilst I am not getting into a debate and trying to argue a case (as I quite agree with you on the main jist of things) I would like to dissagree on the point you made regarding "It's the article that sells the paper, not the photo". A photo is worth a thousand words, and if it's tabloids where talking about, it's the photo that sells - also, it is often the article that the celebrity sues over, not the photo

I once ran an ebay business, and I used to take all of my own photos and was subject on numerous ocassions to my images being stolen and used by my competitors. Needless to say, they were reported, and the images removed

[JSR]

Whilst I am not getting into a debate and trying to argue a case (as I quite agree with you on the main jist of things) I would like to dissagree on the point you made regarding "It's the article that sells the paper, not the photo". A photo is worth a thousand words, and if it's tabloids where talking about, it's the photo that sells - also, it is often the article that the celebrity sues over, not the photo

What we may think about the use of photos in articles from tabloid newspapers and how they are seen in the eyes of the law may be two different things. None of us here are legal people and the only way to be "safe" is to have legal people work with you when using images that may be subject to IP protection. It's worth remembering that newspapers are "press" and there are certain liberties allowed for the press that the rest of us can't use.

I once ran an ebay business, and I used to take all of my own photos and was subject on numerous ocassions to my images being stolen and used by my competitors. Needless to say, they were reported, and the images removed

In the first instance, that's probably what most "normal" celebrities would do if they saw their photo being used without permission - issue a "cease and desist" letter. However, if their legal people pursue the case at it comes to compensation and damages, you'd probably find yourself on a hiding to nothing.

If you're trying to build up a good business with solid foundations and a reputation for doing the right thing, is it worth the risk? For me it's not, but I can only speak for me.

[Robert]

I was just probing earlier to see what the legal side was. Just so there is no confusion over my ethics, I would like to point out that I am currently waiting for a large well known organisation to get back to me regarding permission for use of their images, and some agreement relating to royalties.

[JSR]

I was just probing earlier to see what the legal side was. Just so there is no confusion over my ethics, I would like to point out that I am currently waiting for a large well known organisation to get back to me regarding permission for use of their images, and some agreement relating to royalties.

I hope I didn't sound like I was questioning your ethics. The simple fact that you're seeking clarity proves that you aim to do the right thing.

There's no doubt that it's a bit of a minefield and all we can really do is aim to do the right thing. If we still trip up then at least we do so with a clear conscience.

[Robert]

Not at all JSR. I think though that your right about the number of sellers on ebay who are clearly breaching copyright - it makes it difficult for a legit seller to compete as they to not incurr the fees that one might if paying royalties.

[JSR]

Not at all JSR. I think though that your right about the number of sellers on ebay who are clearly breaching copyright - it makes it difficult for a legit seller to compete as they to not incurr the fees that one might if paying royalties.

Yes, it's very annoying - particularly when it appears that these people "get away with it". Makes you wonder why we're kicking ourselves about doing the right thing.

The way I look at it is that I'm building a business that I want to be here for a long time to come. I'm not here to make a quick buck and run off with the profits. If you intend to stick around, customers will learn this and will see you as a trusted supplier.

I often check with customers on the subject of copyright-protected images and most customers respond favourably because they learn that you care about the product enough to enquire. And legit customers are more likely to come back if they know that they can trust you with their design (because they know you're aware of copyright and so are not suddenly going to flog it over "a popular auction site" or something).

Reputation is the toughest thing to build, but the easiest thing to destroy.

[Robert]

I think there is a difference if you are selling a custom designed mug and a customer supplies you with images which are breaching copyright. In this case, I think that it would be the customer who is in breach and not the printer. I doubt very much under these circumstances I would object, as where do you draw the line? When a customer is supplying the images, there is rarely going to be an instance when you can be certain that the customer owns the copyright.
Under these circumstances, I think that the printer is just following the customers instructions. It would be different if the customer asked you to obtain a particular copyright image - this would be completely different, and under these circumstances, it would be wrong.
Also, with regards to ebay, don't forget, every item page has a link to report breaches of copyright - if you can't beat them, then just put them out of business

[purpledragon]

Yes, it's very annoying - particularly when it appears that these people "get away with it".


Im not sure they are getting away with it maybe in the short term but it does catch up with them.
If a customer provides you with an image that is subject to copyright im afraid you are still as much at fault its up to you as a business to ensure the legalities of what you produce saying the image was provided so its not my fault is like saying i didnt steal the dvd player i just bought it
Brett

[JSR]

I think there is a difference if you are selling a custom designed mug and a customer supplies you with images which are breaching copyright. In this case, I think that it would be the customer who is in breach and not the printer. I doubt very much under these circumstances I would object, as where do you draw the line? When a customer is supplying the images, there is rarely going to be an instance when you can be certain that the customer owns the copyright.

It is a grey area as you can't always be 100% certain and you just wouldn't get any work done if you asked everyone to provide proof of copyright ownership. However, I don't think that telling some highly paid lawyer that "it's the customer's fault" is going to cut much ice with them.

I just use common sense and judgement. If it looks like a holiday picture or a photo of Great Aunt Maud then it invariably is just that and there's no sense in querying copyright. But if the design looks like a football logo, or a Porsche badge, or a picture someone's just nicked off a website, then it's time to start asking questions.

The other reason it's not enough to say "it's the customer's fault" and print it regardless is because the customer could be an agent of a big business or a football club. Someone (perhaps a rival or competitor with nefarious purpose) could have put the word in that you've printed copyright images even if you haven't. To get proof, someone working for said business could "test you out". Okay, it's not likely to happen and it's probably a paranoid attitude, but it doesn't take much to be cautious.

We're not always going to get it right but we can minimise the risks.