1pRoscoe said:
Roscoe..understand that I'm not taking sides in this "debate" (debacle?), and not trying to contradict you. Unfortunately Jimbo is right on this point. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled several years ago that the rights to a photograph belong to the photographer from the moment the shutter is snapped. All he has to do is produce the original negative/image file as evidence that he created the photo. In order to legally use someone else's photograph, you need to be able to produce some sort of document that gives you permission to use it. Just because it is posted on the internet does NOT make it fair game. Downloading and using it is still any infringement of copyright unless you have permission from the person that owns the rights to the photo. I do photography on a professional level. One of the biggest problems that I run into is with Wedding Photography. The customer always thinks for some reason that they are entitled to the negatives or image files along with the prints when they purchase their package. Not so. I retain the rights to those images. If they want reprints, they have to come back to me and purchase them. All of my prints have imprinted on the reverse side, my copyright information. No photo lab will reproduce them from the prints because I would sue the devil out of THEM if they did. Sometimes I will SELL the negatives or image files to the customer, but usually when they hear the price, they decide it's cheaper to pay me for prints. My customers that want product photography are accustomed to this and I never get an argument from them. They buy the rights for one-time use of the images. For instance, if they want a photo for a website, they buy a one-time use agreement that entitles them to put the image on their website only. If they want to use that same image for a flyer or catalog or something like that, they have to pay again. It is not necessary to apply for a copyright for every image.
