Are you a Copy Cat?

Are you a Copy Cat?

Let’s be honest. Did you ever copy at School ? No ? then you missed the joy of copying. What fun it was in those days, unless you were caught! Then you had to stand facing a corner or kneel outside the classroom. This act of yours was considered rather unethical but not illegal. In fact, after the class was over it made you a sort of a hero. But the following act of copying can certainly turn you in to a zero. It can put you in real hot water, or the soup, if you prefer it that way.
Copying someone’s literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work is a crime that punishable by law. It is as bad as stealing. In fact, it is stealing. To protect the rights of authors (photographers in our case), the Government has instituted The copyright Act, 1957 that prohibits the use of the above-mentioned works without the author’s written permission. For the purpose of this article, we shall talk of the Copyright Law as applicable to photographs and the rights of photographers only. Also note that, this is not an in-depth study or a legal document there are many rules/laws or fallouts from such laws that are not included. This article is merely to guide the photographic fraternity to basic knowledge of the law.

The copyright Act is t to protect the artistic talent of the photographer. The Act says that you cannot copy someone else’s picture or a photo idea. If this were not so, any one could copy any one else’s picture and claim to be the author, thus destroying the creative talents of the original artist.
How do you ensure that no one will copy your image? By the simple act of putting the copyright symbol (©) on all your photographs and slide mounts. By doing so, you are proclaiming to the world, that you are the rightful author of the image and that no one should use the image without asking your written permission. It is advisable to register the copyright (not compulsory) at the Copyright office. In case of violation of the act, the registration could be further helpful.

A couple of years ago, a pharmaceutical company printed an image in their calendar without obtaining permission from the concerned photographer. When the photographer sent them a legal notice, they immediately forked out Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- is the minimum penalty per image laid down under the law).

We know of yet another case where an ad agency was asked to pay a photographer rupees two lakhs for the infringement of his image. All this happened without going to a court of law. Two lakhs is the maximum penalty per image.

A leading software manufacturing company had assigned a professional photographer to take a picture from the top of a very tall building. The picture was very successful and hence someone else assigned another professional photographer to take a similar picture from the top of another building. In the lawsuit that followed. A very stiff compensation had to be paid to the software company on the grounds that its unique idea was infringed upon.

The next case is worth nothing. Someone won a prize of 1 million dollars in a drawing competition. The winning picture was of a man wearing picture was of a man wearing a Red-Indian kind of headdress. A photographer, on seeing the prize-winning image, recognized that the person portrayed in the drawing was actually a man he had earlier photographed. When the matter was reported to the authorities that had conducted the drawing competition, the $1 million prize was with drawn!

If it hadn’t been for the Copyright Act, the beneficiaries would not have got any compensation. In most cases, the compensation is made without going to a court of law as the perpetuators understand the enormity of the crime and fully realize that going to court would be futile and that they could end up by paying even more.

So, in spite of knowing the consequences, why do some people take such terrible risks? You might as well as ask why do house-burglars burgle houses? And what is the maximum punishment? Violation of the Act is a criminal offence (earlier it used to be a civil offence) and the punishment is not less than 6 months imprisonment, that can be extended to 3 years and a fine, not less than Rs. 50,000/- that may be extend to Rs. 2,00,000/-

We some times read in newspapers that a photographer had to pay a compensation for photographing someone and printing that picture. What are your rights? As a photographer, you are allowed to photograph any one as long as you take the photo in a public place and print the picture in a newspaper or a magazine, but in an editorial context. In this case, it is considered to be a news item. Copyright issues and legal issues go hand in hand. You cannot use that particular photo for any commercial purpose, as that would be illegal.
Here is a very interesting episode. A lady had posed nude for a photographer. The photographer then used one of the pictures at a photo exhibition. An elderly couple visiting the exhibition strongly protected saying that the photo was of their daughter and asked for the photo to be removed. So now, who’s right and who’s wrong ? The Photographer claimed that since the lady had consented to being photographed in the nude, he had the copyright and there was nothing unethical about it. We would say the photographer was wrong. He had not taken a signed ‘model release’ (a written document which legally allows the photographer/and/or his ad agency to use the image commercially or otherwise). The lady and permitted the photos to be taken but there was no permission to use the pictures in the photo exhibition. Even if a model release is signed, one cannot print a photo if the photo shows the subject in poor light because it is then considered defamatory or slanderous.

Can you photograph someone’s bungalow and use that image as an advertisement in newspaper or magazine? No, you cannot. If the bungalow was on fire or had it crumbled down for some reason or the other, then it would be a news item and hence could be used. So what if you were to photograph a landscape and that picture had the bungalow in it? As long as the landscape is the main subject of the photo and the bungalow is included for artistically improving the picture, you are within your rights to do so.
Is a prior permission of the photographer always required or does the law allow you to use someone else’s work without any prior permission ? Subject to certain conditions – a fair deal for research, study criticism, review and news reporting, as well as use of the works in library and school is permitted without specific permission of the copyright owners.

If you are a photojournalist working for a newspaper or a magazine on a salary (not freelancing), to whom does the copyright of your work belong ?In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary between, you, the journalist, and the company you are working for, the copyright belongs to the company and not be the individual.

Is there a copyright over news? No. There is no copyright over news. However, there is a copyright over the way a news items is reported. And how long does a copyright last ? A copyright lasts for 60 years after which it is considered ‘public domain’.
Certain amendments to the Act have been proposed. One of the amendments says that ‘to encourage registration of copyrights, provision is made that no proceeding regarding infringement of copyright shall be instituted unless the copyright registered in the Copyright Office’.
So how does one go about getting the images copyrighted? Record them on a CD (low resolution would be OK), and the Copyright Office, at a small fee, will grant you a copyright for all the images on that CD. The Office will keep the CD with them for their record.
OK, I have many images. Any copycats around? The penalty is only Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 200,000/- per image. Boy ! Am I going to be rich?