Should I ???? - Page 1

There is someone who use to train at the same location I did. During training sessions he sometimes took some pic's of people and/or thier dogs and would email them out. I have a few pics posted in different places on the internet that he graciously sent me. At the time they were sent there were no strings attached or any "terms of use" given, they were a gift to me. He is not a professional photograper, they were not copyrighted by him and they were given to me unsolisted. There was a falling out between people and he no longer trains where I do. This has been several months ago now. Out of the blue I have recieved an email stating "You do not have my permission via Federal Law to pass them onto anyone or post them yourself anywhere on the Internet. I gave them to you,for your PERSONAL use" - and - "All cameras have a digital individual signature to them and those were mine,no matter where taken" (at this time he has a personal vindetta against me.) I have checked with I.T. personell with the company I work for and they advise that I am not in violation of any laws, local or national. They advised "he should get a life..." What do you think about a guy that does this???

I think the guy's a jerk, is what I think. I wish I knew what to tell you.

If he didn't get any specific permission from you to photograph your dogs, there isn't any contract regarding the photos and/or payment. Just as he doesn't want you to use the photographs, he can't use them because the pictures are of YOUR dogs! I can't just walk up to someone and take their picture without getting permission. I worked at a newspaper and we had to be careful about getting release forms even if we were taking pictures of kids at Christmas time. Both parties have to be aware of terms of use, if they want their picture taken and published, etc. If he was so interested in Federal law, he should have gone up to each person and dog and asked permission to take a photograph BEFORE he took one, and made it clear why he was doing so and what he would be doing with them. You could place a credit on the pictures in question giving, but that's all I would do. If I didn't ask someone to take pictures of my dog and some were sent to me as a gift, then I can do what I want to with them. If the guy's a nut or something I'd take the pictures down and take my own pictures. Who wants someone contacting you spouting Federal law when he's the one that instigated the whole thing?

Actually, I believe if he took the photos, he owns the right to them. SKI might know.

So, what particular law is he stating you are violating? Can you get him to specify? If he won't, then how in the world can he prosecute you successfully without something proven in writing at the time the pics were taken? It is a general good practice not to use pics unless you've asked the taker to use them. And if for any reason you are notified not to use them by the taker, then it's good to heed unless you want to potentially get drug into court. It becomes a he-said/she-said battle in Small Claims court and will only drive you nuts. On the other hand, if the pics are NOT of you NOR one of your dogs(if they DO involve you or your dogs, then simply return the 'official' favor since you haven't given permission for him to use you or your dogs in pics for his personal use, either), then what's the big deal in removing them? You're advertising him in a sense if you're using his materials. Easiest thing to do would be plan on a nice busy training day to snap some nice new pics (if you're the one working someone's dog, ask a friend 3rd person to come & help take pics), get dog owner's consent to post the ones you like, and redo wherever you have these 'questionable' pics posted. Thus you end any association with this person and don't have to worry about any future threats.

Its called copyright. Your IT dept knows about computer stuff, maybe. Not so much about copyright. Ask them if they have a license for everything on their computer, hackhackcopycopy, ;o). And people do not automatically start personal vendettas, unless things got a bit personal, hm? Pix are automatically copyrighted, no need to specifically do that, nor do you have to be a pro. Ask all the lucky folks that lucked out with various disaster footage they sold to the news... Your ex-friend took the pix, he owns the images and the rights to them, whether he registered a copyright or not. If clearly distinguishable people or properties (ie dogs) are in the photos these models or their owners also have a right to their image. No contract needed for the basics here. If something is in the public domain (ie news), then the models rights (ie crowd, or accident victim) may take a back seat, but not the photographers rights. He has granted you personal use so you could post them on a personal website, in theory, but can get tricky. A kennel website is not necessarily a personal website. Re other places, he can limit use and ask for removal. For example if you use the free pix for your own profit, ie in ads. I can only assume that you are one of the people he is feuding with, or else he would not bother re the pix. So either ask if you can keep them up if you provide a photo credit, or take them down, get some new ones done, not worth the trouble. On the other hand, look how many Urma and Mendely pix are on this site and countless other GSD sites. You might remind him of that and that it might be a better idea to shake hands and have a beer or a coffee over this than to keep at it.

Autobahn and Top are correct. It is copyright (at point of snapping the shutter)and the photos and permissions belong to the photographer. Even if that person used your camera, they took the image Great example that is true: Someone took an excellent photo of Enzo in the 6th blind (looking Clark directly in the face)at the Nationals last year (it ended up in the photo book on SCH as well as on SuperiorK9s site). Even though it is our dog, they took the photo. If I wanted to use it, I would have to request written permission and let them know in what media I would like to use it in. And possibly pay for it. That is the expected and correct thing to do.

If he is not a rpo photographer by trade, maybe wants to be, I would remind him that given photo credit, any GOOD images you use might help his career. Also, pix taken of you and yours, posted without your permission, can get tricky as well. I got a minor wake-up call by posting pix of people at the USA Sieger Show online without their permission last spring. Best intentions, but in hind-sight, probably not the best idea I ever had, even as a non-pro photographer. I could probably have faced an expensive, inconvenient lawsuit say my pro friends, especially with an (unidentified) child in one of the pix. But Top Dog knows best. She's been there, done that forever. :)))) SS

"Also, pix taken of you and yours, posted without your permission, can get tricky as well" Shelley, How is that if you are the photographer and the photos were taken at a public event? You own the copyright? What law does that fall under? Thanks! Taking photos of minors at the event, if done, I would ask the parents. That I agree on. Even taking pictures of our puppies with our daughter, I do not show her or any other child in the photo. To me, given photo credit does no replace the requirement for the release of copyright from the photographer.

At the time he gave them to me months ago - there were no strings attached. I also still have the original email he sent me. He knew they were posted and it was fine and he also posted comments about "the good looking dog" on the site. Its only not fine now cause he got mad about something unrelated.