viramati Posted March 15, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 15, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have someone who is after a print of one of my Photographs and received this email 'I'd like to know what you charge and the terms of delivery etc - I am interested in a print of the Tired Dalek. Would it be signed by you?' I was curious as to why he was interested about it being signed so emailed him asking what size print etc he wanted and where he had seen the shot. On receiving his reply I realised this is someone I met at an exhibition that I had some work in and he asked me at the time how much a print would be and I gave a rough price He then said that he worked in Publishing and then that would be the price I would sell it to him for. Anyway to cut a long story short I am worried about his motives in getting the print and that he might want to reproduce it without my permission (hence the question about the signature) I would appreciate it for any advice here (am based in the UK). Had thought of adding something like this to terms of sale 'Photographic prints are sold for display purposes only. Scanning or copying my prints in any way is considered infringement of the photographer's copyright and a violation of copyright law. If you are interested in using one of my images for advertising or design purposes please contact me to license the high-resolution image.' As much as I'm always keen to sell a print I don't like being taken for a ride or a fool!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Hi viramati, Take a look here Copyright question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sparkie Posted March 15, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 15, 2011 I wouldn't worry about it too much. The terms are a good safeguard/insurance. re Signing it, he/she probably just wants it to add some provenance and add to the artistic ownership being penned by the 'artist/photographer. maybe serial number it or code it so its catalogued in your files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks for that. What got me concerned at the time of the exhibition is that he seemed to want to get a low price out of me and then said he worked in publishing and I really got the feeling he was angling for something on the cheap, maybe I'm just being paranoid!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks for that. What got me concerned at the time of the exhibition is that he seemed to want to get a low price out of me and then said he worked in publishing and I really got the feeling he was angling for something on the cheap, maybe I'm just being paranoid!! Probably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted March 15, 2011 Share #5 Posted March 15, 2011 If you're that worried, get his contact details, and ask him to print his name and sign and date the terms & conditions of your sale. apart from that don't loose sleep over it. i'd be more concerned if asked for a hi-res digital copy of it which would be dead easy to distribute. With a print he'd have to photograph/scan it, photoshop out your signature (if on the front of the photo) etc.. if he wanted to sell on which would be more hassle than its worth for a single image. Worse case if you see it used unauthorised down the line one day, take him/her to court. re Price, maybe he couldn't afford to pay more. He probably just really likes the image (which has a quirky charm) and wants to hang it in his home. I think that's a big compliment that someone likes your work enough to pay for it and display it! Also you are fortunate the guy to the right was out of focus to avoid any 'likeness' issues etc. BTW what technique did you use to get the off centre focus, - focus then side step, or focus, move lens then adjust lens focus to compensate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share #6 Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks for both your replies and you probably right and I'm just getting over nervous Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 15, 2011 Share #7 Posted March 15, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Also you are fortunate the guy to the right was out of focus to avoid any 'likeness' issues etc. What 'issues' would they be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted March 15, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 15, 2011 If the guy was in complete focus and saw the print for sale with his image on it, couldn't he ask for it to be taken down or request part of the profits of the sale? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 15, 2011 If the guy was in complete focus and saw the print for sale with his image on it, couldn't he ask for it to be taken down or request part of the profits of the sale? Perhaps in France or Quebec, but not in the UK, USA nor probably any Euro country. (France is just too strange about this.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 15, 2011 Share #10 Posted March 15, 2011 Surely if the purchaser wanted to reproduce the photo they wouldn't be asking you to sign it? If you're uncomfortable selling your work then don't, it's your choice, but seems odd to display your work at a gallery and then get all protective when someone shows interest in a piece. If you want to sell then quote the fellow your price and then it's up to him if he thinks it's worth it or not. You don't need to get agreement to the fact that you own copyright, I don't see the problem here at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted March 15, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 15, 2011 Perhaps in France or Quebec, but not in the UK, USA nor probably any Euro country. (France is just too strange about this.) Thanks for the clarification. The usual is that if its for advertising/commercial purposes its a no, no. But selling prints and images eg. coffee books, photo books is a commercial enterprise, no? ...i'm just saying If a photographer exhibits his/her work and earns nothing from it, or sells on 'profits go to charity' basis then to my knowledge its a-ok. I have a bit of an issue with newspapers and news agencies who profit massively under the guise of 'editorial' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2011 Share #12 Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks for the clarification. The usual is that if its for advertising/commercial purposes its a no, no. But selling prints and images eg. coffee books, photo books is a commercial enterprise, no? ...i'm just saying If a photographer exhibits his/her work and earns nothing from it, or sells on 'profits go to charity' basis then to my knowledge its a-ok. I have a bit of an issue with newspapers and news agencies who profit massively under the guise of 'editorial' Advertising is a different application of the image. Books, editions, and so-forth are about the art itself, and does not relate the subject to a product other than the print. In the USA we have good precedence for such cases. We have discussed it here before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted March 15, 2011 Share #13 Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks Pico. I have read this case before. Just wondered if it was indeed different in other parts of the world especially UK/Europe/Australia/Asia The other point is what if you sell your work internationally, eg online? - anyway, lots of grey areas i guess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manolo Laguillo Posted March 15, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 15, 2011 To sort this problem out perhaps it could be useful to distinguish between 1. the print (an object that embodies your expression in a certain material way, controlled by yourself), something that can be sold, and 2. the right to publish the photograph, ie to make use of it as the support of something else (for instance the publisher's intention). Buying your print does not give automatically the right to publish the photograph, because there are two separate things. In other words: in the old days we gave the client the print(s) so that he/she could reproduce them in a leaflet, book, catalogue, whatever, but what we actually were doing is selling him/her the right to publish our work. The photograph is your intellectual propriety because you are the author (at least here in Spain, according to the spanish law). Nobody can take that authorship away from you. And you can sue the client that does not cite your name when publishing the photograph. As far as I know (I am not a lawyer) there is a big difference between looking at all this from the authorship point of view, as happens here in Spain, or from the copyright point of view, as happens in the USA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 15, 2011 Spain follows the Bern Convention, as do about 200 countries and territories. However, Spain has some additional 'moral' clauses in favor of the artist. One interesting example: a copyright owner who has sold permission to use a work can recind his permission if he finds the application of it is contrary to his moral code. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share #16 Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks all for the replies. James I obviously have no problem selling my work and am am actually flattered when people wish to do so. I this case it was just after my conversation with this guy at the exhibition and that he seemed to be interested as to whether it would be signed (I am hardly a known artist!!!) struck me as a little strange. In the UK Dr Who has quite a following as do things to with it and he had given me the impression that the image could have a certain value, so I was just after some wording to help protect my rights when and if he buys it As to focussing I would have simply focussed on the Dalek and recomposed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted March 15, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 15, 2011 As to focussing I would have simply focussed on the Dalek and recomposed Yeah, i see you took it at f4.0 so there was enough DOF to keep in focus. I thought you might have had it at f1.4 or 2.0 in which case you'd likely have to change your technique Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted March 15, 2011 I should imagine that It could have been f2.8 as you know LR3 estimation of f stop is not that accurate and I find it often errs on the low side Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 15, 2011 Share #19 Posted March 15, 2011 Hi David Well done, and dont worry any publicity is good... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted March 15, 2011 Share #20 Posted March 15, 2011 David - Generally, graphically produced artwork is more valuable if hand signed by the artist, making it more rare and attesting to the artitst's involvement (unlike a restrike or reprint). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.