# Copyright Petition.



## snoop69 (Jun 16, 2007)

Quoted from another forum.................................



> The proposed changes to copyright law mean that any non-commercial body would be able to put *your* work on their website for no fee.
> 
> Please sign this petition to try and persuade the Prime Minister to abandon the plans to amend copyright protection for photography.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vyker (Sep 17, 2008)

Everything should be free!


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

I can't imagine for the life of me what the argument FOR this could possibly be, as all I can see are the negatives? Ridiculous decision that should never have been given a moment's consideration IMO.


----------



## Maxtor (Feb 23, 2007)

WOW! unbelievable!


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

Vyker said:


> Everything should be free!


... because? Go on, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this....

Bret


----------



## Auto Detox (Dec 22, 2007)

Filled this in earlier (been fighting with photobucket) I am a bit surprised by this decision to be honest


----------



## Rickyboy (Oct 14, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> ... because? Go on, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this....
> 
> Bret


Because we wouldn't have to pay for stuff??


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Signed up.


----------



## G900GTI (May 20, 2007)

Done :thumb:
Will also tell the people at the photography club


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Signed



Rickyboy said:


> Because we wouldn't have to pay for stuff??


What do you have to offer me as a trade for the use of my photographs if you don't want to pay for it?


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

Rickyboy said:


> Because we wouldn't have to pay for stuff??


ooookaay. So not paying for stuff is good?

I could rant on this all day. You are on a forum stuffed with people who earn money by - at a very simple level - cleaning other people's cars. 
They clean, I take photos. Should it be free?

You might know someone - a friend of a friend - who would take the photos at your baby's christening. That's cool, it won't cost you anything. If the photos are then pants, what do you do?
Why does he have a half-decent camera in the first place? How do you know he understands what he's doing with it? Because of a lucky shot or five? 
If he takes, say, 100 shots, how long is it going to take to process them properly if maybe 50% of them need real work? (I'll give you a clue, it's not 10 minutes in total, more like 15 min each). Will he put the work in if it's a freebie?

Apply to Detailing. Apply to the proof reading of your degree dissertation.

You want a quality service? You really ought to be prepared to pay for it and be pleasantly surprised when it's cheap. The situation here is such that wedding 'togs don't really exist. Because people aren't prepared to pay enough - when your hourly rate goes below double figures, why put yourself through the stress?

Bret


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

unbelievable... this govt and their civil servants must live in some form of dream world :wall:


----------



## TOGWT (Oct 26, 2005)

Rickyboy said:


> Because we wouldn't have to pay for stuff??


What about detailing for free, of course not (in some cases it your livelihood) same for me I write and sell that writing for my livelihood, I can't afford to give it away for free either.

Although I will share my copyrighted information with selected detailing forums


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Signed. More stupid and hypocritical proposals from this moronic Government.


----------



## Reds (Jan 14, 2009)

Signed up. 

It's completely bizarre. Ah well, nothing about this government surprises me anymore.


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

Signed, utterly retarded


----------



## Rickyboy (Oct 14, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> ooookaay. So not paying for stuff is good?
> 
> I could rant on this all day. You are on a forum stuffed with people who earn money by - at a very simple level - cleaning other people's cars.
> They clean, I take photos. Should it be free?
> ...


Wow... I was joking. Pretty certain that after 26 years of life I have realised as to why people do pay for things. I'm also fairly sure that Vyker was joking in his "everything should be free" post. Thanks anyway for your long winded albeit pointless answer!


----------



## Vyker (Sep 17, 2008)

Rickyboy said:


> I'm also fairly sure that Vyker was joking in his "everything should be free" post.


I wasn't joking!



bretti_kivi said:


> ooookaay. So not paying for stuff is good?
> 
> I could rant on this all day. You are on a forum stuffed with people who earn money by - at a very simple level - cleaning other people's cars.
> They clean, I take photos. Should it be free?
> ...


All valid points, but which have nothing to do with Copyright!

If there was no copyright, you can still offer the service you mention in your post. At no point are they saying "you must no longer go to a wedding take photos then charge them a fee."

Ultimately it is that service you are offering, you are offering your skills, that has nothing to do with Copyright.

I would pay for you to work your magic at my wedding, I don't expect you to then Copyright "my" pictures!

Take a look at OpenSource in the Computer Development world... now imagine Photography taking the same stance.... Brilliant!! [in my view!]

Oh and to also follow on from your analogy of Detailing... Does a detailer do his stuff on your car, then before he leaves he says "oh by the way, while that car is clean, its my property, you cant take it out on the road, and you cant show it off to your mates, until you get my permission!" ?... He doesn't, and neither should a photographer!


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Vyker said:


> I wasn't joking!
> 
> All valid points, but which have nothing to do with Copyright!
> 
> ...


I would have to disagree with you there. They are not "your" pictures.

The images taken at the wedding are the property of the photographer and you pay for licenced copies of these images.

That's how the photographer can charge for re-prints for the relatives etc.

Packages with a master DVD usually cost a lot more as the photographer knows the re-prints are coming straight from the DVD.

So all that will happen is there will be no charge for re-prints as you can get them yourself from the DVD. But, the initial package will cost *a lot* more as the photographer knows he/she is getting no money for re-prints.

This puts good wedding photographers even further out of reach to the ordinary couple and opens up more room for the weekend warrior with all the gear and no idea to wreck someone's wedding with a fancy website and rubbish photos.

The detailing analogy may be flawed but the point behind it is valid.

If you look at Buckas' website, he has some brilliant images on there that he earns money from. Without copywrite all someone has to do is buy 1 and copy it. Then they put a full res one up somewhere and it's in the open for all to use and Buckas' hard work is for the price of one image. So the price of one image instead of a few £ is hundreds of £.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I'll be very, very surprised if open source is the way everything goes. Why? Because at the end of the day, companies need to earn money. How does Red Hat earn cash? Because they sell services. Who to? Companies who use their software... to create product.

Any art, whether it's painted, photos, a website or a computer program, gets protection. 
I understand the German rules: you have control over where your face is shown, but that's it. Anything else (and I mean a group photo where there are 3+ people), your control is gone. I know this because I recently created a book with lots of people shots in and everyone who was individually pictured had to give their permission. 
It's published through a club who are "tolerated" by the manufacturer in question - which means we could actually also use a photo of the vehicle, as that's also copyright. I've been asked for several images from the book in full resolution. Should I give them away? When it cost me the better part of a thousand € to be there to take them?

Open Source is not the end of everything, though I support the idea of excellent products for minimal cost - still, the art involved and skills of others cannot be assumed to cost nothing, never mind the technology needed. One of the reasons you won't find my pics in a wikipedia is because I don't support the licencing. No credit, reuse for free... thanks, I'd like one or the other. 
Yes, Google will move the nav market on with the idea of "free", but then also the subversiveness of the advertising will annoy someone somewhere... 

Bret


----------



## partrir (Mar 31, 2009)

Gruffs said:


> I would have to disagree with you there. They are not "your" pictures.
> 
> The images taken at the wedding are the property of the photographer and you pay for licenced copies of these images.
> 
> ...


Totally aggree. No copyright = reduced fees.

Let me give you a real life example.

I was recently doing a job for a playgroup - standard high key lighting, white backgound "lifestyle" portraits of the kids. One family comes up, and as mum and dad are looking at the packages and products I offer (I always display them at jobs) dad says to mum - "Just get one large picture...I'll scan it, and we can print it as many times as we want". This iritated me somewhat, and I politely pointed out that if he were a builder, I wouldn't expect him to lay the first course of bricks so that I could copy his style for the rest of the building (bad analogy I know, but I couldn't think of anything better).

Thing is, I have set break even points, and I rely on product sales to get to that point before I start earning any money. OK, some people will just want a basic photo - fair enough. But to openly admit that you're going to defraud the photographer by copying his work is a bit cheeky.


----------



## ade33 (Jun 4, 2008)

buckas said:


> Signed, utterly retarded


Seconded. I don't work for free, and likewise I don't expect something for nothing. Typical meddling bl00dy government.


----------



## Vyker (Sep 17, 2008)

partrir said:


> Totally aggree. No copyright = reduced fees.
> 
> Let me give you a real life example.
> 
> ...


Surely this proves the working model isn't modern enough!

The industry needs to change and adapt, to keep up with the "times".

Imagine the scenario gets replayed like this.... The photos are much cheaper, and he buys all that wants, he wont need to defraud you and you end up selling a shed load more..... Yes, this then means more workload for you, but economies of scale... charge less, sell more, this will also worm out the lazy over priced photographers ruining it for everyone else, you can't have your cake and eat it anymore, and this is what the Government is saying!

People want you for your skill and gear, they don't want to defraud you, so set the onus on your skills rather then your results! You'll make more money, and us customers will he happier!

Ultimately, its the photography industry still living and charging as if it was the 1980's. People are smarter these days, I can learn enough about photography and buy the gear setting up my own business and compete with you.. it's no longer a rare, obscure skill, yet those in the industry still treat it as such. Now don't misinterpret what I'm saying, I'm not degrading your knowledge and skill, I'm simply saying that with the modern age of snapping everything, and with the modern tech, photographers need to adapt themselves to the new market... I know that I want professional photos done, I'd love it, but its far far too expensive.

Here here to a modern photography industry


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

You believe it's a skill. I don't. 

Can anyone write good, readable, enjoyable text? At a first attempt?

About the "overpricing"; I saw what the school photographer is charging. I was stunned - he was looking at several euros for a 4x6. Now, if he'd have dropped that to, say, €1.50 - when the print itself is less than 10c - I would have picked up a bunch. His loss, not mine. 
Having said that, the processors here are losing out to home printers. Which means those of us who want quality now either pay through the nose (€25 for an A3 print) or go abroad....

Bret


----------

