The © Symbol Woes?

As always straight to the point...

I do some voluntary work for a local conservation group. They also hold some public events/fund raisers. Over the school holidays they held some "summer Tuesday" events to try and engage and entertain the local kids. I was asked to document these events with me camera. I did and gave them the images I took free of charge to use as they see fit. As with any image I let run wild and free on the tinterweb, they had my ©ranfog.co.uk on them, I do this on the images I put on my own site, Flickr etc etc etc so why would these images be any different?

All was fine.....until...

Someone complained about the ©thing. Then suddenly I had to hold fire on adding images to their website until a decision had been reached by the committee.....

.....We had a meeting, we being the website sub-committee, and decided that it was ok for me to add ©MyName to my images to protect my intellectual property. The real reason for me was so that the people wouldn't think I had taken his shit shots!!
We are now trying to hammer out a group website policy. The group by the way is a registered charity and has regular funding from various sources, the biggest recent award was $100k from the lottery fund. And We're the proud winners of the Lancashire Environment Fund Award 'Best Practice' Award in the Natural Environment Category for the work in the Riverside Park...
...We are also in the process of hammering out a "website policy"

Here are the Highlights...

5.1 images submitted by group photographers are done so in the interests of the group and thus are given as group property or else not submitted. The C and VC have the final say on any issues relating to this clause.

5.2 in line with clause 5.1; where an individual is nominated on their voluntary basis to be responsible for photographing a SCPG event , they are asked to do so for the benefit of the group and the promotion of the group’s reputation and ethos; therefore, all images taken by a group member in this capacity shall notwithstanding become SCPG property.

5.3 Where images are taken by a SCPG group member at events where permission for photographs to be taken is sought from event attendees, all photographers must be aware that this act of requesting permission by the SCPG automatically restricts the use of said images being used by nominated photographers for their own personal use; on any social media, website or otherwise and any breach shall be viewed as a breach of confidentiality and privacy and also a breach of contract and could result in legal proceedings.

5.4 in the instance that at a later date, an individual who has provided photographs and/or commentary decides to sever association with the group, their submissions will remain SCPG property. With regard to this clause, all submissions should be vacant of identifying factors..

To this I sent back, as feedback....

Hiya Andrew,

At the last meeting it was decided that Me and yourself were going to be the "official" photographers for the SCPG group, it was agreed that to protect our own intellectual property, we would tag our own images with our names, as it was deemed inappropriate that I had my usual ©ranfog.co.uk on any SCPG images, we would change it to ©MyName/©yourname so people could differentiate between the 2 photographers. Has this now changed?
Now it seems that according to the policy, specifically the 5 paragraphs, I face possible legal action if I do so! And that anybody else who isn't an "official" SCPG photographer is able to do so, and they can also post the images they took on social media/websites to promote the work that SCPG is doing.
Am I reading this right Pal?

Regards,
Daz.

I then received from HIS WIFE

I cannot answer anything specifically from the first part of the message as I wasn't there.

I think the only part of the policy which refers to any legal action is, that where permission to take photos has been requested, then it would be unprofessional to then breach the trust of attendees by publishing the images outside of the group. For instance, over the summer Tuesday activities, permission was sought for photos to be taken for the group, as there were children attendees. Although not a legal requirement, the asking for permission is good practice- in this scenario, parents gave permissions based on a certain trust and expectation that images were being taken for the group's use and not for personal use - if someone I didn't know who wasn't obviously acting in an official capacity began taking photos of my kids I would certainly challenge that! Again, just as professional photographers seek permission from the individual being photographed in a studio for instance for the photographer to use the images in future publications etc. a request that can be denied, in my opinion it is important for a professional approach to be adopted by anyone who is tasked with taking photos in an official capacity for the group.

The policy isn't set in stone and is able to be altered and adapted etc. but also needs to be set out in a way that covers actions by future members and not just specifically those already involved in the group.

Any issues can be raised and the policy can be altered where it is necessary before it is adopted as practice. Hence the request for feedback -

Hope that explains the clauses a bit better?

Thanks
Sarah

Its late now, just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this shite!
I'm so close to just walking away from the whole thing as when I initially "signed" up it was for spade and barrow work!

Sounds Interesting!

Do these events happen in public places or private places.

In the end, all this has no value in law. They cannot claim copyright just by writing their policy, unless you give them the copyright. If you are the owner of the photos then you decide where and when they are used.

Do they want free photos or not? They seem to be going the right way to upset you.

Well I can see both sides. Cutting to the point - your not under contract, your doing it for free, if they don't want images with watermarks and your unwilling to provide them - that's it.

They reply read quite conciliatory, so perhaps there's more leeway for you in store if you keep talking

My, I'm afraid not v helpful thought, is that life is too short for such nonsense. Behind the verbiage, what is the real issue here? If the group is (rightly) concerned that it should have sufficient permission to publish the photos in any publications, including its website (assuming it has one), then it needs a licence, not ownership. The source of the photos (ie the photographer's name) would usually be incorporated in a caption, or if no caption, unobtrusively on the photo.

It doesn't make sense for a group relying on the good nature of its helpers to use the convoluted language you quote here and to try to tie them up in quite unnecessary restrictions.

Cheers, its good to know I'm alone in thinking/seeing an issue in the way things are.

They should have made clear to you any rule they wanted you to abide by before they asked you to take the pictures. It is unfair / unreasonable to complain afterwards.

I think you're in a very difficult position, you clearly want to help the charity as much as you can. However, I think if this were me, I would politely tell them that is the end of the free photographic services for them and I would take no more.

What are photographs for if not to be viewed? Why did they ask you to take them if they were not to be seen? A charity needs publicity doesn't it? They must have been 100% aware that children would be in the images before you took them.

Regards
David

As others have said, walk away. You can't argue with 'HIS WIFE's interpretation, as it makes no sense whatsoever. It presumes that all viewers of the charity's website are covered by the rules, know of these (unpublished?) rules, and will abide by them! Because unless the charity website is clever enough to limit viewing of children's images to members of their own family only , then they have way, way, way more to worry about from someone who sees and copies those images, than from the photographer who took them - who is known and has a reputation to protect.

They don't grok the 'Web. And you are unlikely to be able to teach them. Even if you have the time - and the inclination.

I think your only choice is how you walk away ...

Write your own terms and send it to them, saying this is how you want to proceed. For example you could set out hire your watermark appears and which sites you will post images to. They then either accept or decline.

You could also send them a more restrictive set of terms, where you agreed not to watermark or post images online, but also confirming your fees as photographer ; P

I'd simply say to them that they are making it all too bureaucratic. They can keep what you've shot, but you retain copyright, but no more photography by you.

Then ask them to rearrange the following into a well known phrase or saying, 'nose, cut, one's, off, spite, face, to, one's'.

Being they have a committee, however, I doubt they'll be able to agree what the answer is, nor what it means if they do get it right, but no doubt it'll get some rules written to cover it.

Thanx everyone for your thoughts, as I meant to write above, its good to know I'm not alone in the way I see it.
I'm not far of just walking away from the whole thing, its the 1st time I've ever had dealings with a committee, its going to be the last time as well!! My only concern is that if I do walk away now its going to look like I've spat my dummy out over this, but do I care what they think!

They do ask for feedback Daz, so just give them the terms under which you are prepared to continue.

Let them either accept or spit out their own dummies

Dude, all I can say is that there's too much drama here. That in itself is a warning sign for potentially more drama to come!

This is a simple thing. Can't believe the tendency for people to make things complicated.

I hope that they see what you are potentially going to be taking away from the table.

Thanx guys. I think I'm just gunna walk away from it, as you say, way to much drama!
Just checked her twitter and it says something about an egotistical Neanderthal!! (for the devilment of the thing I just retweeted it ;o)

Copyright owning egotistical Neanderthal, surely?

Hahaha