New K7

Just bought a K7 after years with Pentax film SLRs. I sometimes use my pictures to illustrate magazine articles, quite a few have appeared in Pentax User over the years (not telling you how many - years, that is!) I was hoping the K7 would enable me to place photos with Alamy or a similar agency, but I am puzzled by what the manual says:
"Images taken using the K7 that are for anything other than personal enjoyment cannot be used without permission according to the rights as specified in the Copyright Act."Does this mean I need to get permission to place images with an agency or sell pics in any other way?

Fairly standard restriction nowdays mainly due to licensing restrictions on codecs used for video. I think the requirements for Jpegs are quite easy going and they seem to allow unrestricted use. This isn't the actual license but it gives you some idea link

You would have to check the Pentax and Adobe Licenses for PEF and DNG.

I'm not familiar with the K-7 but I think the format is Jpeg based and under a similar license to still Jpegs.

Most software on Apple-Macs is for non-commercial use, but it seems to be overlooked.

It is there to protect Pentax, should you use the camera for taking things that are copyrighted, such as Videoing a Play or show, take an image of a copyrighted building (such as the one in Brussels) or other items already copyrighted (National Trust springs to mind).

However, When it comes to images that you have created, it does not affect you submitting those images (apart from above) to stock agencies , uploading to websites etc, as YOU are the copyright holder and not Pentax. And don't worry about RAW files, as this is only the basic image and the end result will be jpeg anyway.

Jpegs are the industry standard nowadays, and not subject to copyright for the user who has taken the image.

As long as you comply with the stock agencies requirements for submission, you will be fine.

Hope this helps.

Has anyone actually tried to sue a camera manufacturer, when someone has breached copyright using their kit?

It's a bit like Nissan being worried they'll get sued if I run a little girl over lol. Ridiculous! But I spose legal consultants have to justify their fees somehow...

Hi !
I hope you let us know how you are getting on with that great camera

Pete

Just out of interest as I understand it the copyright on the Atomium in Brussels only applies within Belgium. They cannot apply it to photos published elsewhere, much as they would like to. They do not own a world wide copyright on it's images.

There was a recent debate about this on a Dutch forum, and the conclusion was because it is a Dutch forum, based in the Netherlands, but also with Belgian members, the copyright doesn't apply - even though the forum got a snotty e-mail from Atomium.

I'm not sure a stock site would accept an unlicensed photo of it though, simply to avoid being hassled by them.

Did you know that many window displays are copyrighted? You have to be a bit careful when photographing them too.

Thanks, all.

The copyright is global unfortunately, however you are able to photograph it, and put an image on a website as long as it is no bigger than 600px on the longest side, and you put a copyright notice with the image.

For personal use (ie no exhibitions, web-site showing or competitions) you can have it any size you want. IE if you want to put a nice large print of it on your wall.
Link here from a website concerning the Atomium in the US.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/notice.cgi?NoticeID=760

I wasn't aware of the Atomium copyright issue.

How absolutely bizarre! No wonder I wasn't even aware of this building's existence. I'm glad to see the situation would not occur in the UK as buildings and artworks may be freely photographed and reproduced http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom

We need EU-wide 'freedom of panorama' laws.

OK I stand corrected, though I believe they lost their case in the Netherlands regarding websites and forums. The copyright here belongs to the photographer not to Atmomium.

No one in their right mind would hand over copyright of their photo to Atomium. They credit the photographer but as copyright holders can do what they like with it without paying the tog a cent.

Boycott them I say

Hi can anybody help i have a K7 and just bought a Samsung 54pfz secondhand. The flash works perfectly in the hot shoe but does not fire in wireless off camera.Am I doing something wrong or is the flash not compatible or not working correctly. Bernie

You should really start a new thread for this as it's not relevant to the above content, but as a quick start have you made sure both flash *and* camera are switched to wireless mode, and that the pop-up flash on the camera is in the "up" position?

I find that incredible. So if I go to Brussels and photograph this structure, as I'm sure millions of tourists from all over the world do, I can't enter it in my camera club annual exhibition or submit it to any of the regional or international salons that serious amateur photographers support?
How do the Atmomium authorities police that on a world wide scale?
David

There is a similar issue with the Eiffel Tower. They originally tried to copyright the appearance of the structure, but then when that didn't work they copyrighted the appearance of the lights on the tower. This has been upheld by Frances highest court. As a result ALL photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night require permission for commercial use, at least in France and some other European countries. According to Wikipedia certain countries have legilsation that specifically circumvents copyright of structures in public places, notably the US and Germany. I don't know what the UK law on this is.

You need to consult a security gaurd