OMG! I can't believe my ex posted this!

[crashbb]

She shouldn't be violating copyright rules if she is 1) giving credit to the photographer and not passing off as her own work 2) isn't making money off these pictures or causing the photographer loss of wages from the pictures.

It could be argued that she is doing this (the bit I bolded). Because the OP posted them on FB, Great Aunt Sally no longer needs to buy the photos - she can view/download/print them for free.

I have no idea of the actual law around it, but I could see the photographer arguing this point.

 

[Mama Who]

It could be argued that she is doing this (the bit I bolded). Because the OP posted them on FB, Great Aunt Sally no longer needs to buy the photos - she can view/download/print them for free.

I have no idea of the actual law around it, but I could see the photographer arguing this point.

Generally, however, what happens is that Aunt Sally says she wants one pic and Grandma asks for another and the next thing you know Mom is buying *more* pics, not less. Photographers have caught on that this is actually better for business and are usually quite content to get the free advertising and potential upsell that comes with sharing of proofs. They might be able to insist you take them down, but they'd be hurting their bottom line.

 

[It'sWDW4me]

I'll be a dissenting opinion here. I wouldn't put it past my ex to do the same thing - and NO, he wouldn't be joking and he would gladly take any $$ given to him. And, no, that $$ wouldn't find it's way to the photographer to pay for the pics.

To put my opinion into proper perspective, my ex - and his wife at the time - gave DS a shotgun? rifle? (I'm not a hunter so I have no idea) for Christmas a few years back. DS LOVES to go hunting with his grandfather and his uncles. The ex has held onto the gun for proper storage when it's not in use. Well, this past summer DS found out that his dad was trying to SELL DS's gun that the ex had GIVEN to him as a Christmas gift! Thankfully, grandpa (ex's dad) found out and "bought" DS's gun/gift from his dad. Grandpa will keep it safe now and it won't go missing all of a sudden.

 

[bpesch]

People seem to be much braver on facebook and forums than they would be in person!

This is what our world has come to. The ability to be relatively anonymous on the net allows for people to show their true colors. And unfortunately it's rarely in a positive way!

 

[PrincessMama605]

I agree with the pp's who said unfriend your ex on facebook.

My ex and I are not friends on facebook and it makes it much easier to try to be "friends" in real life.

 

[torinsmom]

It could be argued that she is doing this (the bit I bolded). Because the OP posted them on FB, Great Aunt Sally no longer needs to buy the photos - she can view/download/print them for free.

I have no idea of the actual law around it, but I could see the photographer arguing this point.

If Aunt Sally wants a picture with copyright protected, do not copy stamped all over the face, she can have it, LOL. It also has a big medallion with PROOF PREVIEW on it. I read all the paperwork and other than DO NOT COPY, I don't see anything mentioned about sharing the photos with others. I have gotten proofs without any watermark on them and that would be different, IMHO.

 

[My3Princez]

If Aunt Sally wants a picture with copyright protected, do not copy stamped all over the face, she can have it, LOL. It also has a big medallion with PROOF PREVIEW on it. I read all the paperwork and other than DO NOT COPY, I don't see anything mentioned about sharing the photos with others. I have gotten proofs without any watermark on them and that would be different, IMHO.

I am a photographer. Scanning and posting a photo IS copying it - that is exactly what the "DO NOT COPY" means. US Copyright law (and the watermark) states that you are not allowed to make copies (print, scanned, electronic or otherwise) of professional photos unless you have a specific written exception from the photographer telling you that you CAN copy and post them. So, unless you have written permission to post professional photos, you are violating the copyright by doing so.
It is true that many photographers are now using facebook to help promote their business. But the photographer is the one who legally posts the photos there and makes them available, not the clients. Photographers (good ones) cringe when clients post scanned prints - they are a poor representation of the photographer's work.

 

[torinsmom]

I am a photographer. Scanning and posting a photo IS copying it - that is exactly what the "DO NOT COPY" means. US Copyright law (and the watermark) states that you are not allowed to make copies (print, scanned, electronic or otherwise) of professional photos unless you have a specific written exception from the photographer telling you that you CAN copy and post them. So, unless you have written permission to post professional photos, you are violating the copyright by doing so.
It is true that many photographers are now using facebook to help promote their business. But the photographer is the one who legally posts the photos there and makes them available, not the clients. Photographers (good ones) cringe when clients post scanned prints - they are a poor representation of the photographer's work.

They should be more clear then. Copying to me is making a physical copy of something that could be used in the same way. So when you buy portraits at say Sears, and you only buy a small package and then post one on FB, are you violating copyright then? How are people supposed to share photos? This kind of proof would not be usable to anyone; it seriously has the whole image covered in light writing. You can't even view them on their website without the watermark. I would post a copy, but someone is liable to report me, LOL.

 

[pamjb]

I am so not looking forward to dealing with this with my soon to be ex. I have been having problems getting him to pay $100 for his portion of my youngest's medical expenses.
As for the cost of the senior pics, for my oldest, I took him to the "official school" photographer for the yearbook shot. Then I took him to JC Penney to have pics for the family done. He did moan and groan about getting dressed up twice, but i told him to suck it up.
Both sets came out great.

 

[SaraJayne]

They should be more clear then. Copying to me is making a physical copy of something that could be used in the same way. So when you buy portraits at say Sears, and you only buy a small package and then post one on FB, are you violating copyright then? How are people supposed to share photos? This kind of proof would not be usable to anyone; it seriously has the whole image covered in light writing. You can't even view them on their website without the watermark. I would post a copy, but someone is liable to report me, LOL.

You already did on the Dis.

 

[angierae]

I am so not looking forward to dealing with this with my soon to be ex. I have been having problems getting him to pay $100 for his portion of my youngest's medical expenses.
As for the cost of the senior pics, for my oldest, I took him to the "official school" photographer for the yearbook shot. Then I took him to JC Penney to have pics for the family done. He did moan and groan about getting dressed up twice, but i told him to suck it up.
Both sets came out great.

Me either, and DD16 will be getting hers done sometime next summer. I plan on taking her, getting them done, ordering what I want, and giving him the proofs and saying "Call the photographer and order what you need for your side of the family/friends."

That's how my mothers worked it out, and I think that's just fine - if he wants pics, he can order and pay for them.

 

[plummer925]

She shouldn't be violating copyright rules if she is 1) giving credit to the photographer and not passing off as her own work 2) isn't making money off these pictures or causing the photographer loss of wages from the pictures.

Actually, that's not true. Copyright laws are VERY much for photographers - I know this because we are photographers. We don't take senior photos, but I still have to know the laws. Without express WRITTEN consent from the photographer, one doesn't even have the right to post proofs on facebook or anywhere, even WITH giving credit. It's different if it's a snapshot, but these are professional photographers photos and the photographer ALWAYS owns the photo unless they gave notice in writing that they do not.

Now, on the other hand - the photographer also doesn't have the right to just use the photo for anything unless the "model" (yes, senior photos are considered models with copyright law!) signed a model release. The exception of this is for art purposes or for news purposes.

It's best to not mess with proofs - you can - and honestly might - get sued for doing so and the photographer WILL win.

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

They should be more clear then. Copying to me is making a physical copy of something that could be used in the same way. So when you buy portraits at say Sears, and you only buy a small package and then post one on FB, are you violating copyright then? How are people supposed to share photos? This kind of proof would not be usable to anyone; it seriously has the whole image covered in light writing. You can't even view them on their website without the watermark. I would post a copy, but someone is liable to report me, LOL.

From what my contract stated (I really didn't want to make you feel bad, seriously, just know that some parents got hit with some really HIGH bills). The photographer owns everything UNTIL you purchase the rights to post them. So unless you purchase the rights to the whole CD that they took of pictures you are not allowed to share via your page or Aunt Sally. Aunt Sally can go to the photographers page and look and purchase if she would like, but if the photographer wanted (AS PER MY CONTRACT and yours could be totally different) if I did what you did, I would be liable for the cost of the entire package and CD. We did not post any pictures on our pages, just linked our friends and family to the photographers preview of our daughter.

 

[My3Princez]

They should be more clear then. Copying to me is making a physical copy of something that could be used in the same way. So when you buy portraits at say Sears, and you only buy a small package and then post one on FB, are you violating copyright then? How are people supposed to share photos? This kind of proof would not be usable to anyone; it seriously has the whole image covered in light writing. You can't even view them on their website without the watermark. I would post a copy, but someone is liable to report me, LOL.

Yes - if you buy a print package and post a copy of the photos on facebook, you are violating copyright. Electronic copies are still copies. Photographers even charge for them.
People are supposed to share photos by (1) showing the prints they purchased when they see each other; (2) sharing the access code to an online gallery if the photographer has made one available; or (3) buying prints to give to others as gifts.
Watermarking of proofs is done for this very reason - so that they are not desirable as copies (although an amazing number of people still do so . . .).

 

[torinsmom]

You already did on the Dis.

Ugh, forgot, let me go take that down. I don't want the Dis Legals to turn me in. I seriously didn't know this was wrong, as so may of my friends have posted proofs on FB. The only way to get the CD is to buy the $400 pack. Man, Disney is cheaper than that!

 

[torinsmom]

Well, took mine down and PM'd those who quoted me and asked them to edit the image out of their posts as well. I hope none of you will turn me in. I would obviously not have knowingly done this.

 

[My3Princez]

Ugh, forgot, let me go take that down. I don't want the Dis Legals to turn me in. I seriously didn't know this was wrong, as so may of my friends have posted proofs on FB. The only way to get the CD is to buy the $400 pack. Man, Disney is cheaper than that!

It is a common practice, and many - like you - do not know it is wrong. Some do know and go ahead anyway.
I'm not too far from you in NC and if your son's school uses the same photography studio that all the other local schools do, you are right - they are expensive! They do good work but generally it's hard to find out what the print prices are before getting the photos taken, and many many parents walk away with sticker shock. I've had some clients come to me after getting their proofs and price list from them and decide it was a better deal for them to have a second session with me and purchase prints than to buy enough quantity for their friends and relatives from the official school studio. And I'm not the only local photographer to have experienced that!

 

[torinsmom]

It is a common practice, and many - like you - do not know it is wrong. Some do know and go ahead anyway.
I'm not too far from you in NC and if your son's school uses the same photography studio that all the other local schools do, you are right - they are expensive! They do good work but generally it's hard to find out what the print prices are before getting the photos taken, and many many parents walk away with sticker shock. I've had some clients come to me after getting their proofs and price list from them and decide it was a better deal for them to have a second session with me and purchase prints than to buy enough quantity for their friends and relatives from the official school studio. And I'm not the only local photographer to have experienced that!

It is Prestige/Lifetouch. I actually only took him so he would have a picture in the yearboook, but thought I would be able to buy a few for just family. It is $59 for one 8x10, $39 for 8 wallets. A decent package is $339 and that is only 2-8x10, 4-5x7, 4-4x5, 48 wallets, a wallet box, and a wallet album. I plan on doing casuals myself with the help of a friend. I may end up taking him to sears in his tux(bought it for prom last year) to have more formals done. The background on these was just like the background they used at my K-5 school a few weeks ago.

 

[libinatorsmom]

Sorry but I think you took his post in the wrong frame of mind... I will often post on facebook something similar to that... "Need new tires on the Car anyone want to chip in" its all just in fun not a serious question... RELAX

 

[IDoDis]

A couple of summers ago we had outdoor family photos taken. When we purchased the photos we wanted (very expensive -- paid over $1400 for a few prints), I asked the photographer if I could post any on facebook. He said it costs extra to have the right to do that and gave me an amount of around $200 for rights to post the purchased photos. However, since we paid so much, he told me he'd make a cd for me of the purchased prints for free and I could post it.

Turns out I'm fb friends with a good friend of his, so I'm glad I got permission ahead of time. You never know these days! As another poster already said, photographers don't like proofs posted because it doesn't show the photo at it's best. When photographers post their own photos on their own web pages or fb pages, they have already done the work on them to make them nice. Or if they show the customer the proofs via their web page, the proofs a log-in and password are needed to view the proofs so that only the client sees the proofs, not every visitor to the web page.