This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi I have recently started going to craft fairs to sell some of my photos on canvas and mounts. I was talking to a customer and i seen someone taking a photo of one of my canvases I caught a glimpse of the camera screensp and they'd cropped right in on one canvas. I was really annoyed but before I could say anything they walked away. What rights do I have in asking them to delete the image or compensate me in anyway. Any help or comments welcome
In reply to gunbo:
bump.
Likewise, I sell at craft fairs and other events and would be interested
to know where we stand in this situation.
You certainly have no right to demand they delete the image but other than
that I don't know.
Good luck with your sales!
bump.
Likewise, I sell at craft fairs and other events and would be interested
to know where we stand in this situation.
You certainly have no right to demand they delete the image but other than
that I don't know.
Good luck with your sales!
In reply to gunbo: it was dire sold 7 a4 sized mounts and prints bit discourging for first show but I'll try again. Loads of people saying really nice and unusual photos/canvases and loads of foot traffic but no one sold much on the day so not too worried
In reply to gunbo:
Not being sarcastic (I have to state this as I fear it will look like I am!) but have you considered dangling some obstructions (e.g. a "C" cut out of cardboard) in front of your prints?
Not being sarcastic (I have to state this as I fear it will look like I am!) but have you considered dangling some obstructions (e.g. a "C" cut out of cardboard) in front of your prints?
In reply to gunbo:
You want to buy some infra-red LEDs and put them up above the canvas pointing out.
They'll royally mess with many mobile phone cameras, compact cameras and generally everything but dSLRs (which tend to have a decent IR filter). It may still mess with dSLR autofocus sensors?
If you make something to randomly pulse their brightness it will really screw with photography gear.
http://www.cts-direct.net/cop-infrared-led-12v-bulb-lir-cb11-cop-security
You want to buy some infra-red LEDs and put them up above the canvas pointing out.
They'll royally mess with many mobile phone cameras, compact cameras and generally everything but dSLRs (which tend to have a decent IR filter). It may still mess with dSLR autofocus sensors?
If you make something to randomly pulse their brightness it will really screw with photography gear.
http://www.cts-direct.net/cop-infrared-led-12v-bulb-lir-cb11-cop-security
In reply to wintertree: thats a really good idea might try that one. Not too worried because it was a gloss canvas and a poor digital camera so think the quality of their image will be poor just wondered where I stood legally
In reply to Blue Straggler: thanks for suggestion dont want to obstruct pics too much though just need to be aware of people taking pics in future
In reply to gunbo:
It is no different, really, to people putting watermarks on their prints. That is what I was getting at. Let people see the image well enough but spoil their attempt to copy it
> (In reply to Blue Straggler) thanks for suggestion dont want to obstruct pics too much though just need to be aware of people taking pics in future
It is no different, really, to people putting watermarks on their prints. That is what I was getting at. Let people see the image well enough but spoil their attempt to copy it
In reply to gunbo:
I'd say that was pretty bloody good for a first time, well done!
> (In reply to gunbo) it was dire sold 7 a4 sized mounts and prints bit discourging for first show but I'll try again. Loads of people saying really nice and unusual photos/canvases and loads of foot traffic but no one sold much on the day so not too worried
I'd say that was pretty bloody good for a first time, well done!
In reply to Tom Last: lol thanks was a long day that was all
In reply to gunbo:
What about wrapping them in clingfilm, that way they won't get a high qualitly shot.
What about wrapping them in clingfilm, that way they won't get a high qualitly shot.
In reply to gunbo:
Why worry about a photo of a photo? The quality will be shite, the picture will be taken under some angle, and the light is most likely horrid, all resulting in something not even close to the original.
Considering that they can't do something with it anyway, and that they're not going to buy your photographs if you prohibit photography, just let them go. Much better than shouting 'no pictures' at people, probably wouldn't leave a good impression on people who are interested in buying stuff from you. Sure, if someone comes with a dSLR, a macro lens en want to make a copy from 3 foot distance, you can say something about it. If it someone from a few meters away and they're taking a pic with a phone/point-and-shoot, don't bother.
Also, if the craft fair is on public ground (don't know if that is generally the case), you can't legally prohibit people from taking pictures since you chose to expose them there, for everyone to see.
Why worry about a photo of a photo? The quality will be shite, the picture will be taken under some angle, and the light is most likely horrid, all resulting in something not even close to the original.
Considering that they can't do something with it anyway, and that they're not going to buy your photographs if you prohibit photography, just let them go. Much better than shouting 'no pictures' at people, probably wouldn't leave a good impression on people who are interested in buying stuff from you. Sure, if someone comes with a dSLR, a macro lens en want to make a copy from 3 foot distance, you can say something about it. If it someone from a few meters away and they're taking a pic with a phone/point-and-shoot, don't bother.
Also, if the craft fair is on public ground (don't know if that is generally the case), you can't legally prohibit people from taking pictures since you chose to expose them there, for everyone to see.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Better idea would be to hang a business card, so if they want a decent copy they have your details and can get in touch with you to buy one.
> (In reply to gunbo)
>
> Not being sarcastic (I have to state this as I fear it will look like I am!) but have you considered dangling some obstructions (e.g. a "C" cut out of cardboard) in front of your prints?
>
> Not being sarcastic (I have to state this as I fear it will look like I am!) but have you considered dangling some obstructions (e.g. a "C" cut out of cardboard) in front of your prints?
Better idea would be to hang a business card, so if they want a decent copy they have your details and can get in touch with you to buy one.
In reply to Arjen: more annoyed she never stopped to ask permission or questions it would have been polite
In reply to gunbo:
What would you have said in reply to such a request?
"No don't take any photos - buy one or go away" perhaps?
> (In reply to Arjen) more annoyed she never stopped to ask permission or questions it would have been polite
What would you have said in reply to such a request?
"No don't take any photos - buy one or go away" perhaps?
In reply to gunbo: would have asked why she was wanting to take a photo and see what she said. Depending on answer would have either asked her not too or amaybe haggled over price if she liked but maybe thought it was too expensive. I tough £45 for a 30x20 inch gloss finish canvas I've only got the one canvas of that view the now
In reply to gunbo:
She would have said "I have a friend who likes stuff like this, I'd like to show her some samples".
She would have said "I have a friend who likes stuff like this, I'd like to show her some samples".
In reply to gunbo: had posters saying more photos on Facebook like page........
In reply to gunbo:
I didn't say that she would be telling the truth. I just said that that is what she would say. And anyway not EVERYONE has a Facebook account or even regular Internet access.
I didn't say that she would be telling the truth. I just said that that is what she would say. And anyway not EVERYONE has a Facebook account or even regular Internet access.
In reply to gunbo: no but you would be in the (very small) minority of people not having Facebook or Internet access
In reply to gunbo:
well yeah, but that requires remembering the name of the FB page, and bothering to look it up later. Now she just took her camera and took a snap. Really, don't get worked-up about it - in fact, I'd go to her, give her my business card, and say something like 'thank you for appreciating my work, here you can find some more pictures of mine, and we deliver too'.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...
> (In reply to gunbo) had posters saying more photos on Facebook like page........
well yeah, but that requires remembering the name of the FB page, and bothering to look it up later. Now she just took her camera and took a snap. Really, don't get worked-up about it - in fact, I'd go to her, give her my business card, and say something like 'thank you for appreciating my work, here you can find some more pictures of mine, and we deliver too'.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...
In reply to gunbo: yeah the business cards dotted around with the Facebook symbol and name of Facebook page on them that were free for anyone besides original post was to ask where I stood legally more out of curiosity Than anything. Yes I was annoyed and angry but that's just because peoeple are rude I wanted to know if I had any legal rights to stop or restrict people from taking pictures.
In reply to gunbo:
Almost certainly not. IANAL but I am 95% convinced that you would have no legal rights to do this, in that scenario.
Others on the thread have suggested likewise.
I don't have a link.
> I wanted to know if I had any legal rights to stop or restrict people from taking pictures.
Almost certainly not. IANAL but I am 95% convinced that you would have no legal rights to do this, in that scenario.
Others on the thread have suggested likewise.
I don't have a link.
In reply to gunbo:
If she was copying your photo then it was breach of copyright because although you don't own the original view you do own the composition/crop you chose. If she was taking a general view of the stall then you have no rights.
However, as others have said, it's probably not worth bothering. Someone who takes a swift snap of your photo would probably not have bought it anyway.
If she was copying your photo then it was breach of copyright because although you don't own the original view you do own the composition/crop you chose. If she was taking a general view of the stall then you have no rights.
However, as others have said, it's probably not worth bothering. Someone who takes a swift snap of your photo would probably not have bought it anyway.
In reply to gunbo:
Its an interesting one and certainly at times museums and gallery exhibitions do restrict photography although its not hard and fast as some artists don't mind it and therefore allow it. NPG has some guidance http://www.npg.org.uk/about/creators/moral-rights.php which uses copyright law as guidance.
I guess you could put up a sign saying no photography and I know of many painters who do this but whether its enforceable is up for debate, I suspect it just deters the more morally inclined
Its an interesting one and certainly at times museums and gallery exhibitions do restrict photography although its not hard and fast as some artists don't mind it and therefore allow it. NPG has some guidance http://www.npg.org.uk/about/creators/moral-rights.php which uses copyright law as guidance.
I guess you could put up a sign saying no photography and I know of many painters who do this but whether its enforceable is up for debate, I suspect it just deters the more morally inclined
In reply to Removed User:
Mostly this is to protect their own postcard sales in the souvenir shop, though it is also done to protect the works from repeated flash day after day, year after year. It also helps their photo rights sales in books and magazines. As the NPG guidelines say, copyuright lasts for the artist's lifetime plus 70 years so for the Old Masters copyright in the original painting is long gone. However, by not allowing photography the gallery can take its own photo, which becomes a fresh copyright, and then charge for the photo. Crafty, huh?
> (In reply to Removed Usergunbo)
>
> at times museums and gallery exhibitions do restrict photography
>
> at times museums and gallery exhibitions do restrict photography
Mostly this is to protect their own postcard sales in the souvenir shop, though it is also done to protect the works from repeated flash day after day, year after year. It also helps their photo rights sales in books and magazines. As the NPG guidelines say, copyuright lasts for the artist's lifetime plus 70 years so for the Old Masters copyright in the original painting is long gone. However, by not allowing photography the gallery can take its own photo, which becomes a fresh copyright, and then charge for the photo. Crafty, huh?
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I saw one exhibit at the Science Museum that specifically ordered "no photography", I can't remember the signage or wording but it definitely menat "no photography AT ALL", not just "no flash photography". It was not a delicate-looking exhibit either. It struck me as rather odd but there you have it. I doubt it was legally enforceable, but I honoured it (dull exhibit anyway!)
> (In reply to simon c)
> [...]
>
> Mostly this is to protect their own postcard sales in the souvenir shop, though it is also done to protect the works from repeated flash day after day, year after year.
> [...]
>
> Mostly this is to protect their own postcard sales in the souvenir shop, though it is also done to protect the works from repeated flash day after day, year after year.
I saw one exhibit at the Science Museum that specifically ordered "no photography", I can't remember the signage or wording but it definitely menat "no photography AT ALL", not just "no flash photography". It was not a delicate-looking exhibit either. It struck me as rather odd but there you have it. I doubt it was legally enforceable, but I honoured it (dull exhibit anyway!)
In reply to Blue Straggler:
They say.....'imitation' is the sincerest form of flattery! )
They say.....'imitation' is the sincerest form of flattery! )
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Indeed. Interesting that was often levelled (postcard sales) at the National Trust but they seem to have relaxed the non photography rule and allow more unfettered albeit non flash photography these days.
I find that regional contemporary multi exhibitions seem to take the artists/ agent wishes on board in a more incise way and one room can allow it and and another room doesn't rather than a blanket ban. Quietly refreshing when the entire thing is ok to take imagery. The websites often have decent resolution promotional images which kind of defeats the objection.
Mind you, some Art History archives are pretty dire on reproduction quality at times.
Indeed. Interesting that was often levelled (postcard sales) at the National Trust but they seem to have relaxed the non photography rule and allow more unfettered albeit non flash photography these days.
I find that regional contemporary multi exhibitions seem to take the artists/ agent wishes on board in a more incise way and one room can allow it and and another room doesn't rather than a blanket ban. Quietly refreshing when the entire thing is ok to take imagery. The websites often have decent resolution promotional images which kind of defeats the objection.
Mind you, some Art History archives are pretty dire on reproduction quality at times.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Funny you say that - the Rijksmuseum here in Amsterdam has the complete opposite policy - photography is allowed (and encouraged), just without flash because it might damage the art.
Also, the whole collection that's copyright-free (300,000 pieces) are available in high-res online, with no copyright restrictions whatsover:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search?ii=0&p=1
A pretty cool attitude- as a museum, they would like that as many people use the art, so it gets more attention, which (according to them) should be the core business of the museum.
Funny you say that - the Rijksmuseum here in Amsterdam has the complete opposite policy - photography is allowed (and encouraged), just without flash because it might damage the art.
Also, the whole collection that's copyright-free (300,000 pieces) are available in high-res online, with no copyright restrictions whatsover:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search?ii=0&p=1
A pretty cool attitude- as a museum, they would like that as many people use the art, so it gets more attention, which (according to them) should be the core business of the museum.
In reply to gunbo:
If they are in a public place, they can take pictures of anything they wish. If it's private property and there are signs saying no photography then that's different.
If they are a stock photographer, they wouldn't be able to upload the image to any Micro or Royalty Free agency as they would be asked for a property release before they could sell it.
It could be uploaded to a Rights Managed agency but again, without a property release it could not be used commercially. It could however be sold as an editorial image, for example, used in a newspaper or magazine to illustrate an article or news event.
As others have mentioned, it is very unlikely they would get a good enough image to use as a print, it would need to be in a studio to do this so you could control the lighting, shadows and perspective etc.
If the image they took was of the painting and stall / surroundings, then I would say it maybe an editorial stock photographer. Still not much you can do about it if it is a public place though and shouting at people to stop talking photos may not be the best PR.
If they are in a public place, they can take pictures of anything they wish. If it's private property and there are signs saying no photography then that's different.
If they are a stock photographer, they wouldn't be able to upload the image to any Micro or Royalty Free agency as they would be asked for a property release before they could sell it.
It could be uploaded to a Rights Managed agency but again, without a property release it could not be used commercially. It could however be sold as an editorial image, for example, used in a newspaper or magazine to illustrate an article or news event.
As others have mentioned, it is very unlikely they would get a good enough image to use as a print, it would need to be in a studio to do this so you could control the lighting, shadows and perspective etc.
If the image they took was of the painting and stall / surroundings, then I would say it maybe an editorial stock photographer. Still not much you can do about it if it is a public place though and shouting at people to stop talking photos may not be the best PR.
I used to have problems with this, then I invested in an inexpensive system like this that eliminated the problem http://tinyurl.com/pq6kejq
More seriously, a business card sounds like the best remedy.
More seriously, a business card sounds like the best remedy.
In reply to gunbo:
1) Try it yourself & see if you get an image good enough for you to be bothered about.
2) Smile and engage the person as a potential customer as you already know they have more interest than the people who just walk past.
1) Try it yourself & see if you get an image good enough for you to be bothered about.
2) Smile and engage the person as a potential customer as you already know they have more interest than the people who just walk past.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...