Photos - a polite request

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

Well there us always the possibility that SM could have two photoshoot prices, one for single people, and one for group shots. For example, I had a shoot with Jewel Staite on my own. That cost me £15. If I wanted to have my friends in with me, the group shot could cost say an extra £10, making it £25. That way, even if the customer only gets one photo, then goes and scans it in making loads of copies for the others, at least SM have made some extra money from it, and it is also a great reduction in price for someone in a family of 4, paying £25 instead of £60. Although it should be stated that there must be a limit on the number of extra people in the shot, say 4, otherwise it would start to get unworkable. Its just a bit of a compromise.

[Mr.Jones]

Well there us always the possibility that SM could have two photoshoot prices, one for single people, and one for group shots. For example, I had a shoot with Jewel Staite on my own. That cost me £15. If I wanted to have my friends in with me, the group shot could cost say an extra £10, making it £25. That way, even if the customer only gets one photo, then goes and scans it in making loads of copies for the others, at least SM have made some extra money from it, and it is also a great reduction in price for someone in a family of 4, paying £25 instead of £60. Although it should be stated that there must be a limit on the number of extra people in the shot, say 4, otherwise it would start to get unworkable. Its just a bit of a compromise.

I can understand what you are saying, but as I have said before, it is not about Showmastersa losing money, but single fans who are paying one amount, and a group of people being able to end up paying less as they scan and have devloped for a fraction of the price. That is unfair to us singletons.

[nicky]

..has anyway else noticed that the original poster has posted once and once only. They have not even bothered to reply or post again in what has become a heated debate. Hmmmm...

That's quite common. After all she is a "mum of three" and probably has her hands full.

[Mr.Jones]

..has anyway else noticed that the original poster has posted once and once only. They have not even bothered to reply or post again in what has become a heated debate. Hmmmm...

That's quite common. After all she is a "mum of three" and probably has her hands full.

That is one possible explanation, but you also have the "stirrer" position where someone comes on to stir and then jogs on...quite sad really...

[MikeDonovan]

Well, if there's any truth in the persistent rumour that Helen Slater was groped during her photoshoot, perhaps it's better that we avoid the group photos.

 

Having 5 13 year old boys pay £3 each to get a rub-off from Jewel Staite is not going to enhance the reputation of this event.

[Mr.Jones]

Well, if there's any truth in the persistent rumour that Helen Slater was groped during her photoshoot, perhaps it's better that we avoid the group photos.

 

Having 5 13 year old boys pay £3 each to get a rub-off from Jewel Staite is not going to enhance the reputation of this event.

Very true.

[Adz931]

And if you 'decide' to get one photo with a guest, and bring along your friends to get in there too, then take the ONE photo home and get it copied so everyone has one .. that's fair is it?

 

Again, please read. But, also include the fact that if you are going to get a group picture SM should have the names of those in the group and the number in the group written/typed on the ticket. SM should also in instances like this have a copyright on the photo's, so as to prevent developers from re-developing/copying the photo's and before you say - how many people have professional developing capabilities??:

 

I think common sense needs to prevail here.

 

If you want a photo with a guest, by yourself, you pay the one price.

 

If you are a couple or family or group and decide to get one photo together with the guest, you pay the one price.

You only get one photograph at the end of it.

If you want more than one photograph then you pay the extra charge.

 

That is not wrong, nor is it unfair.

 

It is your own prerogative to get a photo by yourself or with other people.

 

Ad

 

 

I also think some people on here are very bitter about this.

 

I dont have kids, and my girlfriend isnt bothered about getting photo's with the guests - only I am. Me, no-one else, by myself.

 

Therefore, you cannot say I am on any side.

 

Ad

[MikeDonovan]

And if you 'decide' to get one photo with a guest, and bring along your friends to get in there too, then take the ONE photo home and get it copied so everyone has one .. that's fair is it?

 

Again, please read. But, also include the fact that if you are going to get a group picture SM should have the names of those in the group and the number in the group written/typed on the ticket. SM should also in instances like this have a copyright on the photo's, so as to prevent developers from re-developing/copying the photo's and before you say - how many people have professional developing capabilities??:

 

I think common sense needs to prevail here.

 

If you want a photo with a guest, by yourself, you pay the one price.

 

If you are a couple or family or group and decide to get one photo together with the guest, you pay the one price.

You only get one photograph at the end of it.

If you want more than one photograph then you pay the extra charge.

 

That is not wrong, nor is it unfair.

 

It is your own prerogative to get a photo by yourself or with other people.

 

Ad

 

OK. Just to clarify, I think the point of order here, as it were, is this :-

 

if I walked up to Patrick Stewart with a wife and 4 kids of various ages, and gave him 6 things to sign, expecting to be charged only £25, would that be fair?

[Mr.Jones]

SM should also in instances like this have a copyright on the photo's, so as to prevent developers from re-developing/copying the photo's and before you say - how many people have professional developing capabilities??:

 

If you check out copyright law, if you are in a photo, then you have the right to do anything with the photo. The only problem therein lies is the fact that someone else is in the photo. I have had digital photos taken with a guest at conventions etc and gone to a local photo developing shop and had them blown up and printed out within the hour. I have even scanned and taken in photoshoot photos and had them blown up and printed out. Professional developing is a thing of the past with the advent of technology, and you can take a memory stick or card into any Boots store and have them developed in a machine you operate.

 

My personal comments were driven by certain posters, including the original one who has only posted once throughout the whole board, and their naivity in my opinion as regards costs. We all choose to go to these events and choose to get autographs, photoshoots and merchandise. It is not a necessity that we do it, but a choice. The reasoning of some people is all about them, and to hell with the rest. People saying about the one photo has never been the issue for me personally. Nor has Showmasters losing income. Mine has been the fact that duplicate photos can be obtained very cheaply and of equal quality from any high street photo developers. Copyrighting a photo can never be enforced as regards photos.

 

I respect everyone's right to an opinion, as I would hope they would respect my right. But to have one rule/price for those who are a family/group/couple etc, and one rule/price for single person photoshoots is wrong in my book. It means that the system could be abused by those who choose to try. And that is wrong.

 

Mr.Jones

 

P.S. I am not bitter, and I am not saying you said I was, but rather disappointed at some people's attitudes.

[chris_mk]

If you check out copyright law, if you are in a photo, then you have the right to do anything with the photo. The only problem therein lies is the fact that someone else is in the photo. I have had digital photos taken with a guest at conventions etc and gone to a local photo developing shop and had them blown up and printed out within the hour. I have even scanned and taken in photoshoot photos and had them blown up and printed out. Professional developing is a thing of the past with the advent of technology, and you can take a memory stick or card into any Boots store and have them developed in a machine you operate.

 

Do you have ANY clue what you're talking about?!?

 

from the following website:

 

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/...raphy_copyright

 

Who owns the copyright on photographs?

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

 

If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.

If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

 

Examples:

 

If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.

If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.

 

Try not to make posts promoting infringments on Showmasters copyright in future

[Mr.Jones]

Do you have ANY clue what you're talking about?!?

 

I looked up information and quoted what was listed. If the listing is indeed wrong or right, then it is something I will now endeavour to clarify one way or the other. Because, if a information source is quoting incorrect information, then I will question it myself. I did not just post something without checking beforehand.

 

Try not to make posts promoting infringments on Showmasters copyright in future

 

I have in now way made posts promoting infringements on Showmasters copyright, but continued an exchange of messages about this topic. I would never direct or suggest people should infringe copyright of Showmasters to anyone. To suggest that I am promoting such actions is taking one part of an entire exchange out of context to make it something it never was and never will be.

 

Thankyou

 

Mr. Jones

 

P.S. Just to quote you from another string.."Sorry, when exactly did YOU become a moderator on this forum?"

 

Oh, and just to make it blatantly obvious, I am being heavily, yet politely, sarcastic with the P.S. message.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Mr.Jones

[nkb]

Do you have ANY clue what you're talking about?!?

 

I looked up information and quoted what was listed. If the listing is indeed wrong or right, then it is something I will now endeavour to clarify one way or the other. Because, if a information source is quoting incorrect information, then I will question it myself. I did not just post something without checking beforehand.

 

Maybe you should do what us journalists do and CITE YOUR SOURCES because blatently you're wrong and the copyright law as it stands has been the case for some time - surely by your logic celebrities / politicians etc would own copyright of all of their images. A cursory look through any newspaper will see this is blatently not the case as all those stories about them doing bad things are illustrated somehow...

 

Try not to make posts promoting infringments on Showmasters copyright in future

 

I have in now way made posts promoting infringements on Showmasters copyright, but continued an exchange of messages about this topic. I would never direct or suggest people should infringe copyright of Showmasters to anyone. To suggest that I am promoting such actions is taking one part of an entire exchange out of context to make it something it never was and never will be.

 

See I'd suggest that what you said here counts as promoting copyright infringement.

 

If you check out copyright law, if you are in a photo, then you have the right to do anything with the photo. The only problem therein lies is the fact that someone else is in the photo. I have had digital photos taken with a guest at conventions etc and gone to a local photo developing shop and had them blown up and printed out within the hour. I have even scanned and taken in photoshoot photos and had them blown up and printed out. Professional developing is a thing of the past with the advent of technology, and you can take a memory stick or card into any Boots store and have them developed in a machine you operate.

 

My personal comments were driven by certain posters, including the original one who has only posted once throughout the whole board, and their naivity in my opinion as regards costs. We all choose to go to these events and choose to get autographs, photoshoots and merchandise. It is not a necessity that we do it, but a choice. The reasoning of some people is all about them, and to hell with the rest. People saying about the one photo has never been the issue for me personally. Nor has Showmasters losing income. Mine has been the fact that duplicate photos can be obtained very cheaply and of equal quality from any high street photo developers. Copyrighting a photo can never be enforced as regards photos.

[chris_mk]

Do you have ANY clue what you're talking about?!?

 

I looked up information and quoted what was listed. If the listing is indeed wrong or right, then it is something I will now endeavour to clarify one way or the other. Because, if a information source is quoting incorrect information, then I will question it myself. I did not just post something without checking beforehand.

 

Really? So what source is this? I just did a google search on 'copyright law photographs' and that quote is from the first site I found. What did you search on?

 

Try not to make posts promoting infringments on Showmasters copyright in future

 

I have in now way made posts promoting infringements on Showmasters copyright, but continued an exchange of messages about this topic. I would never direct or suggest people should infringe copyright of Showmasters to anyone. To suggest that I am promoting such actions is taking one part of an entire exchange out of context to make it something it never was and never will be.

 

Do you actually read anything you post?

I have had digital photos taken with a guest at conventions etc and gone to a local photo developing shop and had them blown up and printed out within the hour.

 

and how exactly is this not promoting copyright infringement? Also

 

Mine has been the fact that duplicate photos can be obtained very cheaply and of equal quality from any high street photo developers. Copyrighting a photo can never be enforced as regards photos

 

Again.... seems to promote it to me.

 

P.S. Just to quote you from another string.."Sorry, when exactly did YOU become a moderator on this forum?"

 

Oh, and just to make it blatantly obvious, I am being heavily, yet politely, sarcastic with the P.S. message.

 

A Moderators job is to monitor the forum to ensure that forum rules are not broken and to watch for things that might be considered libellous. In my opinion, you have not broken the forum rules, you have just actively encouraged copyright piracy.... which I don't feel is necessarily within a moderators scope. Therefore I feel utterly justified in pointing out to anyone listening to the stuff you spouted that it was factually incorrect and technically illegal.

[Mr.Jones]

To: NKB - Once I have taken the matter up with the information source I had, I will have no problem in naming it. As I always say on this forum, I will put my hands up and accept if I have posted something that is incorrect. With the strength of your post's content, and that of Chris-Mk's, I have a strong feeling that my source of information may well have been wrong. If this is indeed so, then I will say so. Until I am able to question said source of information regarding copyright law, I can't commit either way.

 

To: Chris_MK - As I have said above, once I have taken this matter up with my information source (it wasn't internet based) I will have no problem in stating where it is I got the information from. As regards the copyright infringement, I do accept that someone - as is obvious by your comments - can indeed take what I have said as what you have suggested it to be. For that I accept that my wording should be more well chosen as not to be in anyway misleading as to it's meaning as of posting, and indeed apologise to SM for that misunderstanding. The moderator comment was made with tongue in cheek, and I respect your response to that. There was no ill will meant. One final thing Chris, Simon is my middle name and has been since February of 2005 when my name was legally changed. It is a name I rarely respond to, so I would be grateful if you called me Will as that is the name I legally use.

 

Cheers Chris.

[Agent Bristow]

If you check out copyright law, if you are in a photo, then you have the right to do anything with the photo. The only problem therein lies is the fact that someone else is in the photo. I have had digital photos taken with a guest at conventions etc and gone to a local photo developing shop and had them blown up and printed out within the hour. I have even scanned and taken in photoshoot photos and had them blown up and printed out. Professional developing is a thing of the past with the advent of technology, and you can take a memory stick or card into any Boots store and have them developed in a machine you operate.

 

Do you have ANY clue what you're talking about?!?

 

from the following website:

 

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/...raphy_copyright

 

Who owns the copyright on photographs?

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

 

If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.

If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

 

Examples:

 

If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.

If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.

 

Try not to make posts promoting infringments on Showmasters copyright in future

 

You are absolutely right. I have to deal with copyright laws most days as I manage a photo shop and it is widely known that the copyright on photos taken by a photographer is owned by the photographer. No photo shop should be copying these photos, it's against the law and could land them with a hefty fine.

 

I have so many people complaining to me about this, you'd be amazed at how long people will keep asking for copies, after I've told them it's against the law to copy them.

 

I think it's fair, even photographers have to make a living!

[Mr.Jones]

As promised I have checked my source of information and accept that the information I posted regarding copyright law was incorrect. I never intentionally posted misleading information, but consulted with two female friends of mine (Shanne Louise and Hayley - no surnames at their request) who both study at Bristol University (not on Law courses might I add). I asked them initially as they had successfully gotten a local nightclub to remove photos of them from their website and flyers for their clubnights. What I didn't know until 10 minutes ago was that it wasn't done on points of law, but because they had been continually bugging the club owner for over a month. It was also the case that they told me that they were now able to get copies of the photos. So, I sincerely apologise for the fact that I relied upon information provided to me that I had not checked out as it was from two girls I class as friends. In the future I will do otherwise as the previous posts by NKB and Chris MK can cause issues.

[Little Miss Idiot]

It's amazing how people are misreading things.

 

It's pretty simple and I can see the original posters point. Frankly if I had to pay for me, my partner and my kids at £15 each, I'd be expecting one picture per £15, same as I'd get if we all went in individually. If a family wants one picture with them all together then why should they be charged more, as long as the time scale isn't extended due to multiple people I don't see the issue.

[CurlyKirsty]

I think common sense needs to prevail here.

 

If you want a photo with a guest, by yourself, you pay the one price.

 

If you are a couple or family or group and decide to get one photo together with the guest, you pay the one price.

You only get one photograph at the end of it.

If you want more than one photograph then you pay the extra charge.

 

That is not wrong, nor is it unfair.

 

It is your own prerogative to get a photo by yourself or with other people.

 

Ad

 

 

What happens if the family only want one photo and it costs £60 to £100 to get it then the single people are happy? Don`t forget that many people bringing the kids are raising the next generation of customers or did all you single people not have parents to genorously take you to conventions and signing events?

[Grazer]

I think the idea of paying per photo as opposed to per person has merit. But there seem to be copyright issues (as discussed already) regarding copying. Not to mention that no matter how could your scanner/printer is, it wont be good as the original.

 

The discounts for children I think is the best idea, whether thats under 12 or under 14. Half price with a full paying adult or something

 

I think paying per person is the easiest (and ultimately) fairest way to do it though.

[TommyT]

It's amazing how people are misreading things.

Yup.

It's pretty simple and I can see the original posters point. Frankly if I had to pay for me, my partner and my kids at £15 each, I'd be expecting one picture per £15, same as I'd get if we all went in individually.

Which is exactly what you'll get.

[chris_mk]

I think the idea of paying per photo as opposed to per person has merit. But there seem to be copyright issues (as discussed already) regarding copying. Not to mention that no matter how could your scanner/printer is, it wont be good as the original.

 

The discounts for children I think is the best idea, whether thats under 12 or under 14. Half price with a full paying adult or something

 

I think paying per person is the easiest (and ultimately) fairest way to do it though.

 

My opinion would be under 10's go in free with an adult, but you only get one pic. 2 adults and 2 kids would be twice the amount and 2 pics.

[Adz931]

I think common sense needs to prevail here.

 

If you want a photo with a guest, by yourself, you pay the one price.

 

If you are a couple or family or group and decide to get one photo together with the guest, you pay the one price.

You only get one photograph at the end of it.

If you want more than one photograph then you pay the extra charge.

 

That is not wrong, nor is it unfair.

 

It is your own prerogative to get a photo by yourself or with other people.

 

Ad

 

 

What happens if the family only want one photo and it costs £60 to £100 to get it then the single people are happy? Don`t forget that many people bringing the kids are raising the next generation of customers or did all you single people not have parents to genorously take you to conventions and signing events?

 

Did you read what I said? Thats what I am saying.

 

If you are only going to get ONE photo then it should cost the ONE price, no matter how many people are in the photo.

 

If you want more than one photo you pay the price per extra photo.

 

That is FAIR !!!

 

Its not hard people and it is also not discriminating against SINGLE people!

 

If I wanted to get a photo with a guest, it would only be I who would be in the photo - my girlfriend just isnt bothered about being in the photo's - so to reiterate, as a SINGLETON so to speak, I really should be saying that every single person who gets a photo, who are in a group, should each pay the £15/20 price - but Im not saying that because I look at the FAIREST way for all concerned.

 

Ad

[TommyT]

I think the idea of paying per photo as opposed to per person has merit. But there seem to be copyright issues (as discussed already) regarding copying. Not to mention that no matter how could your scanner/printer is, it wont be good as the original.

Given the number of people with iPods and mp3 players, I'm sure there would be plenty of people who thought their scanned and printed copies would be "good enough"...

[buffy2k]

i have to say as a single person i would object to families yet again getting extra benefits. I work virtually 2 jobs as my hobby of going to these events has to be paid for, if you do want photos most guests you can get mostly them over the tables with the guests anyway if you need to save money. If i have to pay £15-20 for a photo then why wouldnt everyone else. My friends and i have had a group shot and paid £40-£100 for them so thats the price if thats what you want you have to pay it.

This is not a cheap hobby and you have to put up a lot of money for these events as it is if you cant afford it then dont go i'm afraid. I have had to forgo events as well when i couldnt afford it thats the way it is.

at the end of the day its £15-£20 per person per posed photo if you want your friends or family in the photo they each pay the same amount they are after all still in the photo. if you start doing concessions here and there i know there will be mainly honest parents but there will also be people abusing the system and this is not fair and then where do you draw the line if you have one child one year older whats to stop the parents of said children saying they are younger etc. where does it end? I can just see total chaos and its going to be a nightmare to organise for SM and other event organisers if this goes ahead,

I dont want to seem mean to families, parents or anyone else dont get me wrong i just think that you have to abide by the pricing rules otherwise it will always be unfair on someone and quite honestly its always single people.

Edited November 29, 2007 by buffy2k