The general public does not understand it & more of them are becoming "photographers". What if I told you your cousin that you just took photos for of her child used your images on her "photography" page on facebook to make a timeline cover where the images are so small your logo is not visible.
This just happened to me & I am sooo happy that I only let her have low resolution images. She stuck her photography name right across it. I had made a very nice timeline cover for her because I knew she would want to use the images in that was but she proceeded to do this instead.
Her reason behind the whole thing was "I let you use my child for the photos so I should be able to do whatever I want with the images".
I hate the ignorance of everyone these days =(
(The images have been removed from her page btw but still I just hate that she does not understand)
Image of the crime below.
The photo is yours, so she has no rights to use the image without your permission. But... you also need permission from the subject (or his/her parent/guardian) before you can use use it for commercial purposes.
She did agree to my copyright terms but then turned around and did this.
I don't know if this is anything to do with photographer/general public, this is out and out theft! I'm not sure if your post gets the message across but the image certainly does. If i did a shoot, and gave a digital image of any size to someone, I'm not sure if i'd be bothered about it being 'used' on facebook. But this image that this person has 'created' has one purpose only and that is to promote themselves as a photographer, and using images that someone else has taken! That is wrong on so many levels!!!!
By adding the word photography to her imposed logo suggests that she is a) a photographer or enthusiast, and b) that she's taken these images herself! Now a) is irrelevant, and b) is simply not true! You have every right to be annoyed and I am sure that the family connection made it harder to approach but it's certainly a good thing that you did. Just a shame she'll probably never understand what it is she did wrong...
That is exactly why I'm upset. I did try to explain it to her but she does not understand or is pretending she does not understand and just overlooking it.
I would have tagged the photograph with may name as photographer. I often do, when I give pics, or even have sold them. Then I use 2 tags down in the pic at left side, 1. photographer 2. my name.
No she has no right to do this. Yes this is her child and she can use the photo for Personal use but the minute she uses them on her "photography" page she is violation of your rights. However in the same twist of the hand unless she signed a release you can not use pictures of her daughter to advertise your photography either; especially since her daughter is a minor. I have been there and feel your pain. I was at a workday with a photography friend. One of the models she booked (who were all related to her) was not 18 and therefore could not sign a release. I was bummed because some of those pictures were definitely pictures I would have used to promote myself.
Great Pics by the way!
It is in my contract that I am allowed to use the images for advertising and portfolio purposes and if the parent agrees then it is fine. Thought this is a old issue and I'm over it and continue to use the images in my advertising without her having any issues with it.