Encrypting a DVD so that others cannot copy

[bode]

@Lordsmurf

I think that's a model release though. Contracts include things like "may be used for promotional purposes..." anyway.

As long as it doesn't offend the person in question you can do what you want with the images. Although, if anyone would like to correct me, direct me to a link.

[alenhard]

I still find it hard to believe that in this thread the professional photographer/videographer has been made out to be greedy and bloodsucking for wanting to have control of works he or she has created and produced.

The real greedy bloodsuckers are the posters who are so childish and cheap as to assume that because they are the subjects of the work being done that it is theirs to do whatever they will. There is no denying that these same people are the ones constantly bullying others in this forum and hiding behind threats and insults to make their point. If you've been around long enough it is very easy to know who they are. These are the type of people that I'm much better off by refusing to serve them. I don't care who they are and my time is worth more than dealing with them.

Any self-respecting professional who actually understands business keeps the copyright unless otherwise stated specifically in a contract. You threaten me with "word of mouth" negative PR? That's okay because it's likely that the people you would tell (i.e. your frinds and family) are just as greedy, low-class, and bloodsucking as you are.

If you disagree, please enlighten yourself by making a few phone calls to professionals in your area and asking them if you can reproduce their work.

And that load of crap about it being a privilege for the videographer to be at your wedding? What a joke! He is providing the service to you! You're getting a copy of the video, what else do you want? You certainly don't deserve anything more.

[IvIark]

As long as it doesn't offend the person in question you can do what you want with the images. Although, if anyone would like to correct me, direct me to a link.

They certainly can't, or at least they can't in the UK anyway, look here under the heading "Safeguarding of privacy in work commissioned for private and domestic purposes". They can't even be used in portfolios without permission.

http://www.epuk.org/resources/abcd/majorpoints.html

Mark

[IvIark]

The real greedy bloodsuckers are the posters who are so childish and cheap as to assume that because they are the subjects of the work being done that it is theirs to do whatever they will.

I personally don't assume I have the right because I'm the subject, I have the right as far as I'm concerned because I already paid a considerable amount for his artistic time and efforts and couldn't care less about who the law deems to hold the copyright. If that means that a few photographers out there will be making a bit less money then I'm not going to be shedding any tears.

Mark

[hudsonf]

I don't think anyone is really trying to be a bloodsucker. We just have a different view of things. Basically the way I feel is if I go to a photography studio and they takes some photos (no money exchanged yet) and I go back when the proofs are done and pick-out and pay for the photos I want he should have the copyright to the photos he took. He is the artist working for himself and I'm buying his finished product. But if I hire him and pay him upfront to shoot my wedding video then he is my employee and I should have the copyright to the video. I'm no lawyer so I don't know the laws this is just how I feel. When My son gets married If I hire the video photographer I will pay them to make all the copies I think I will need. They are the professional and not me so I'm sure they will do a better job of labeling the dvds and making the inserts for the cases then I could. I don't mind paying a fair price for a good product.

[dcsos]

PELASS just wants their repeat business

When they GET DIVORCED, he will need to draw around eachimage of the MAN in each frame with the GROOM in it to remove him from the WEDDING TAPE

[freestyler]

I don't mind paying a fair price for a good product.

Well said Hudson. Funny stuff dcsos, maybe the groom should wear a Chroma Key Green tuxedo to make the job a little easier?

[hudsonf]

Or he could paste the head of the new boyfriend over the ex-husbands head. As for repeat business; If the people are happy with his work I'm sure they will come back if they need another video made. Almost forgot MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone!

[Paul_W]

If your client clearly understands that they don't have the rights to copy the work that they paid you to do, before they contract with you to do the work, then you are entitled to charge for the copies. On the other hand... If you didn't make this arrangement clear or buried it in the fine print before they paid you, then it's a greedy move.

[offline]

Because of privacy laws, the photographer cannot put any
image of the client up for public display (e.g. a display at
the front window of his studio) without explicit
permission from the client. .

What privacy laws? What country? While it is sound common
sense (not to mention polite) to ask for permission you do not
have to obtain a signed model release form or any other "explicit"
permissions at least here in Australia.

[b1tchm4gn3t]

This may be irrelevant, but here is a link to a cheap site I threw together for my parents pool hall....

http://www.classicbilliards.cjb.net/


On that site there is a button (employee pictures). When I took that Picture with my Kodak digital camera, we had to have them sign a waiver stating that we could use that picture in the site. How we knew that this HAD to be done was that my mother is a paralegal and is well aquainted with MANY lawyers and had it looked into. Other pictures on that site which included people and myself also had to have waivers signed. I myself am on the site, but I would say you people understand why I didnt sign one! Hard to see me...but I am on a pictures page..middle picture...far right hand side.

[freestyler]

nice place you got there. how much does a pool table like the ones you have there run?

[b1tchm4gn3t]

Im thinking they were like $6000US each. And there are 17. More money than I have thats for sure! Ill check with them to be exact though.
I know they have at least 1/4 of a million in the whole cha-bang.

[IvIark]

What privacy laws? What country?

The privacy laws in the UK that stop a photographer who own the copyright for a private function that he was hired for, from selling those pictures to the highest bidder if, for instance, the groom suddenly becomes a world famous celebrity.

Even us plebs are protected from the more unscrupulous photographer.

Happy Christmas to you all by the way!

Mark

[bode]

As long as it doesn't offend the person in question you can do what you want with the images. Although, if anyone would like to correct me, direct me to a link.

They certainly can't, or at least they can't in the UK anyway, look here under the heading "Safeguarding of privacy in work commissioned for private and domestic purposes". They can't even be used in portfolios without permission.

http://www.epuk.org/resources/abcd/majorpoints.html

Mark

But as I've said a number of times, the model release will cover this when undertaking any commercial work.

Interesting reading on the epuk site, it re-inforced the fact that photographers should actively pursue customers who make illegal cheap copies.

[JMO]

I don't profess to be an expert on international copyright law, but as far as I'm aware, the client not the photographer owns the copyright in photographs/ videos taken on behalf of the client. Once the client has paid for the services of the photographer, they own all reproduction rights.

Part of the problem is you're falling into the same trap as Hollywood. You see the possibility of hundreds of copies being made of your work and you panic thinking you're losing all that money. You're not. If you came up with a foolproof copying system you could sell it to Hollywood for a mint but you wouldn't get any more work from your clients. If you do a good job for a reasonable rate, all you can expect is your fee for the work. Don't con yourself.

It would be far better to put a copying notice along the lines of an honest request that copies be made through the maker than someone else (like the Hollywood non-piracy argument). The difference is you've got a face they'll know they're cheating than faceless thousands working for some billionaire Suit in Hollywood. Give people some credit. If you did a good job of the video, and you didn't charge a fortune for shoddy work, you'll get a return. If you're in the business to save up for a Porsche, you'll get exactly what you deserve.

[branch]

You cannot use a person's image for financial gain unless they agree to it. Most normal contracts don't cover this, and in fact, it is often required that a separate contract be drawn up if you want to use a person's image or likeness for financial gain.

So a person taking pictures at a wedding can't charge for it, because its a financial gain, eh?

--
Its a pity there isn't a rule against "window.clipboardData.setData('text','')",20)

[gmatov]

This has been running a full week now, nearly 300 replies.

My last wedding was 3 years ago. I paid the photo-videographer, one contractor, seperate crews, well, seperate fees for each service. Actually, my daughter contracted her, told me who to pay, and how much. I did not see the contracts.

I think, however, we got a good deal. Bucks is not what I mean, at that time, how the hell do you know?

WhatI do know is that she supplied the photos as specified, and X copies of finished VHS tapes, suitably labeled, as well as several tapes labeled "Raw Footage".

I do believe she turned over all the material she shot. I don't think she thought she had ownership of the bridal couples memories . I might just call to see if she can make me a DVD of the same wedding.

If she asks if I still have the raw tapes, then, yes, but otherwise, no, I'd assume we have photogs who are a little less greedy than some posting here.

If she says yes, but she would have to convert to DVD format, and, say, 100 bucks, extra copies, 10 or so, I would say we chose one hell of an ethical contractor in the first place. ( I might add, I thought she was one pushy bitch at the very beginning, but she faded to the point of near invisibility as the 14 hour day progresed.) Total professional. Would recommend her if asked.

Anyway, this should really culminate in someone setting up a registry in which those wedding photogs who do or do not believe the bridal party own the rights to their own production .

You know, column A , "It's your wedding".

Column B, "I shoot it, it's mine, and the bride scratches her ass, and it's a nice ass, and Larry Flint is paying 20 bucks for good looking brides scratching their asses, I just made 20 more bucks, how many more disks did you want, hey let's dicker."

This is probably a biased poll or registry. 3 words, good guys, a paragraph, the equivalent of saying "I own your soul", as some of the primitive societies supposedly told photogs when they tried tosshoot natives pictures.

[lordsmurf]

You cannot use a person's image for financial gain unless they agree to it. Most normal contracts don't cover this, and in fact, it is often required that a separate contract be drawn up if you want to use a person's image or likeness for financial gain.

So a person taking pictures at a wedding can't charge for it, because its a financial gain, eh?

--
Its a pity there isn't a rule against "window.clipboardData.setData('text','')",20)

You're either missing the point, or you just like to argue. Sorry, guy/gal, I don't fall for that. If you take my picture, you are not allowed to sell it for commercial use unless I agree to it (and often in a separate contract, not as some hidden aspect of a big bulky one). End of story. If you shoot me at my request, I obviously agree I can buy my own images of myself. But that's all.

[IvIark]

But as I've said a number of times, the model release will cover this when undertaking any commercial work.

Yes of course but we weren't talking about commercial work we were talking about private functions.

Interesting reading on the epuk site, it re-inforced the fact that photographers should actively pursue customers who make illegal cheap copies.

I think that my message to them would be much the same as many others - prove it.

Mark

[bode]

What privacy laws? What country?

The privacy laws in the UK that stop a photographer who own the copyright for a private function that he was hired for, from selling those pictures to the highest bidder if, for instance, the groom suddenly becomes a world famous celebrity.

Even us plebs are protected from the more unscrupulous photographer.

Happy Christmas to you all by the way!

Mark

Read your own post!!.."he was hired for.." This is commercial work.

Anyway, I'm bored with this thread and I hope a few of you are more aware of copyright law - it isn't greed.

[Sabro]

Honestly, I don't think the original author's business ethics are the subject
nor is it what they asked for advice on. IMHO there is nothing wrong with
wanting to protect his/her investment, since I'm sure alot of you (or the businesses you work for) have paided billions of $ for 'site licenses'' for multiple use of software, etc.... Anyways, that aside.....

I've never use the following, so I can't say if it works correctly or not, but
it may / may not help.

http://www.asiapac.ulead.com/dws/dws2/faq.htm#4

Q: Can I copy-protect my DVDs with DVD Workshop 2?
A: Yes, you can protect your projects with region coding,
CSS encryption or Macrovision encoding.


Again, I've never used this product so I can't say either or as to how it
will work, but I do believe *THIS* is the type of information the original
poster is looking for, and not loads of junk questioning his/her ethics.

Regards,

Sabro

S.A.B.R.O. Net Security Admin
home.earthlink.net/~wh1004989

[presto]

$10/copy is a fair rate. $30/copy isn't a fair rate.

????????????????? Based on what?

[gll99]

Dear Mr videographer/photographer.

This letter is in answer to your threats stating that we cannot make copies of our wedding videos and give them to our parents.

(The "I's" below include me, my wife, some family members and close friends)

I recruited the actors and assured their presence (mailed invitations, personal visits, phone calls, letters...).
I paid for and chose the main actors costumes. (tuxes, wedding dress, and various items for the best man, ushers, bridesmaids, flower girls etc..)
I provided for and paid for many of the sets, transportation and many locales used in the video. (My home and my bride's home, church, hall, dining area etc...). The beautiful flowers in the park seen in the photographs were provided by the city but the site was chosen by my wife. We directed you as to the type of photos that we wanted.
I paid the caterers including your meal and drinks.
I paid the band who played so beautifully.
I paid a wedding planner or personally and through friends choreographed and directed events and activities including many of the picture shots which you or your young helper took.
The "actors" who provided the speeches and the writers were all friends and family members. You missed a key portion of the father of the bride's speech when you changed batteries or something like that but of course your bill was not adjusted accordingly. Fortunately friends were also filming the same scene and we were able to salvage the moment from their copies (at no charge).

I am the producer, director and also financed much of this project and you sir are one of many hired hands. Your fee was based on the amount of time and work that was required of you. I agree that you presented us
with some very good credentials and obviously possess certain expertise in your field of work just like my gardener, interior decorator, chauffeur and caterer do, otherwise there would have been no reason to hire you.
We paid a per hour charge, plus a fixed amount for the raw footage film from 2 cameras and "x" number of prints. We also purchased some empty photo albums from you to store the pictures at a handsome profit for you. We waited so long for the pictures and albums that my wife teased me and jokingly said "one day my prints will come"
We also paid a considerable extra for your time in preparing a montage of selected video portions set to classical piano music selected by me.

You were well paid for specific services rendered and now the contract is terminated. You are trying to artificially extend the terms of our agreement beyond it's usefulness to me the client. You claim that a fine print statement inserted by you, obligates me and allows you to extend certain parts of the terms indefinitely to your financial advantage. Such types of one sided clauses which would bind us in perpetuity are not legal and I am in no way obligated to honour them.

You also claim to "own" my videos as your intellectual property. As far as I am concerned, you can't even claim to own the physical cartridges or video tapes since you itemized them on my paid invoice. I am certainly willing to let a judge decide if your recording services and some cut and paste editing overrides my rights as the producer, 1st director and financial backer of this production which is my wedding.

It doesn't matter what your fine print contract say's because it won't hold up in court. You know that and so do I. That is why you are resorting to vague threats of possible action.

I will do as I see fit with my property and no amount harassment by you will change that.

Not so cordially yours,

the Groom.

ps:
Any further correspondance will be handled by my legal representatives.

[gmatov]

gll99

Well spoke!!!

Glad to see you woke from the coma and are back among the posters.

Missed your input.

Cheers,

George

[gll99]

Hi George:
Been really busy for a while and still am but still visit often just didn't log in or comment.
Noticed some of your stuff and good to see your just as active as ever. You will have to post in the off topic about your new grandchild? Hope all is well.

I finally had to pipe in on this one (plus the one about NEC1300a bitsetting since I own one but that's another topic)

Back on track here:

In the old days the photographer held on to the negatives and that somewhat guaranteed some percentage of return business. Probably not through any particular legal reasons but you know the old saying posession is 9/10 of the law so I guess some felt that this was their right. Few complained because making prints of varying sizes took specialized enlargers etc.. and the developpers time. You were in effect paying for the photo paper, a part of his equipment and the developers labor. You didn't feel like your pictures were held up for ransom by the photographer because it's something that most people could not do themselves so they were happy to have this service offered to them. With digital technology practically anyone with a computer can reproduce an exact duplicate of a digitally stored image or video. Now it's no longer seen as a service but as gouging and that is why so many people prefer to reproduce copies of their family video's themselves once they have the original that they bought and paid for.

I might take a different position if the bulk of the production (scenery, costumes etc...) were supplied by the photographer ie... dept store Santa picture with my child which I may required to pay for. I would not say that the photographer can use the image as he sees fit but I would tend to agree that in this case he could have certain property rights and may have a right to try and control copying and distribution. Whether it would be worth a legal hassle or not is another matter.

What if the photographer is a machine? Mall hallway box... 3 poses for $5. Now who owns the intellectual rights? Wow do I really want to go there?

[IvIark]

Read your own post!!.."he was hired for.." This is commercial work.

No it's not, it's a private funtion - just because money changes hands doesn't mean that it's a commercial photo shoot.

Mark

[offline]

What if the photographer is a machine? Mall hallway box... 3 poses for $5. Now who owns the intellectual rights? Wow do I really want to go there?

Hmm.. what about the bank robber caught in the act on CCT?
or the mad nanny, beating a child caught on home spycam?

[Fomalhaut]

$10/copy is a fair rate. $30/copy isn't a fair rate.

????????????????? Based on what?

What I don't understand is that if you think your price is reasonable, why are you worried about people making copies themselves? If your price is fair, other people won't be able to make copies with much lower price. They will naturally go to you for extra copies to save time and trouble. Why, then, do you need to encrypt the DVD?

[solarfox]

Q: Can I copy-protect my DVDs with DVD Workshop 2?
A: Yes, you can protect your projects with region coding,
CSS encryption or Macrovision encoding.

Again, I've never used this product so I can't say either or as to how it
will work, but I do believe *THIS* is the type of information the original
poster is looking for, and not loads of junk questioning his/her ethics.

Interesting, although probably not all that useful in practice. Region codes and Macrovision could probably be put onto DVD-R copies, since they're just flags settings in the .IFO files -- but you can't CSS-encrypt a recordable disc, and CSS would be the only thing that'd give him any actual protection against someone doing a disc-copy. (Well, against someone who doesn't otherwise know what they're doing, anyway.) This probably means that DVD Workshop 2 can output to a DLT tape for subsequent glass mastering.

Oh, and gll99: Your "Dear Mr videographer/photographer" letter was entertaining to read, but if you should ever find yourself in this situation for real, I suspect you're in for a rude shock. The business practices you guys are railing against in this thread are quite common in the original poster's profession, and a judge is far more likely to tell you that you or your wedding planner should've read the contract more carefully before signing it.