- This topic is empty.
Even bigger rip off…
-
..for all those involved:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=41501&c=1Press Gazette understands that photographers have been sending in hard drives to the agency to get their images back.
I don’t really understand this bit. Seems really odd to me, anyone else?
Surely most of the photographers have copies on their hard drives anyway? Weird.Aye, doesn’t make much sense.
Unless they were sending in film and the agency was scanning them.Still, unless you’re standing over them while they delete the files there’s no guarantee they won’t keep a copy, either on their own internal back up system or on some server somewhere else.
Mick451 wrote:
Unless they were sending in film and the agency was scanning them.
Correct.
Most photographers at the top end in this field were still shooting film up until last year.
The Library charged for scanning their film – so if the Library were to fold then they could lose those scans, which they paid for.Just so you know, most of the leading magazines in the UK, insisted on 2 1/4 tranie film up until January 2007.
I believe, I would have been one of only a few, to have had digital excepted over the past 4 years – because I was using a MDB system – but even at that, some still insisted I shot it on film.Still, unless you’re standing over them while they delete the files there’s no guarantee they won’t keep a copy, either on their own internal back up system or on some server somewhere else.
Yes, they can keep them on file – but if the images were published, then that would be an infringement of copyright.
However, it hasn’t got to that stage yet. Most are still happy to leave their images with the Library for the time being – but should the Library fold, they will at least have the scans, so they don’t totally lose out.“Yes they can keep them on file but if the images were published, then that would be an infringement of copyright. “
From what I’ve read wouldn’t it be an infringement of copyright to even hold them on a hard disk (a copy) once the photographer terminated any contract they had. There’s a huge amount of trust involved on the part of the photographer and little in the way of transparency (ha ha) of how the images are being utilised -how would a photographer be expected to keep an eye on every publication/website that used images?
I dunno, I’ve just always been wary of stock libraries – not that I have much to be precious about ;)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
