Photograph

[Buddy]

Please let me know if I am in the wrong site.

I took a photograph of my two sprogs over ten years ago on a beach in the Vendee region in France.I am not a photographer but on this occasion it turned out to be spectacular.I then had it enlarged and professionally mounted.Everyone who comes into the house asks where they can get one.They cant believe it.Now far from making something out of it as I have loads of photos on the wall of my two is it worth letting someone see it and if so is there anything I can do to protect the fact it is my photo.Well yes I think someone would be interested-I'm not going to beat about the bush.Thanks for any advice.

[kempie]

Provided the photo was taken after 1st August 1989 then it is covered by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which confers automatic copyright for the authors/creators life plus 70 years after death. If you had taken the photo in the course of your duties during employment then the copyright would belong to your employer.

[Buenchico]

You don't say why you think this photograph might interest someone. For inclusion in a calendar? As a poster? For a greetings card? If it's for any of these purposes the usual requirement would be that you should supply the original negative (not a print, however good) and that the negative be 'medium format' (i.e. bigger than 35mm size). It's also often considered a 'plus' point for print reproduction if a colour picture is taken on slide, rather than print, film. With the advent of quality scanners and professional photo-manipulation software, some of these requirements aren't quite as important as they used to be but you might still face difficulties getting someone interested in a picture taken on 35mm, colour print film.

Most magazines, etc, that require such pictures would normally turn to an agency which has 'stock' photographs available. Individual photographers can, and do, submit their photographs to stock libraries but, of course, only a small number of stock photographs are ever selected for publication. Also, quite a few stock agencies will not accept 35mm. (They may also insist upon a minimum number of high-quality pictures being added to their stock lists).

If you want to see the professional standards you'll be up against when a publisher selects an image, go here:
http://pro.corbis.com/splash.aspx
Select 'Search Creative' and then enter "kids beach" into the search box.

The best way to get an independent assessment of the quality of the photograph is to visit your local library and ask
for the contact details of the secretary of the local photography society. He/she will probably be happy to give his/her opinion and, because most societies are usually full of people who are desperate to get their work published, you'll probably be given a good indication of whether or not there are any commercial opportunities

[Buenchico]

Er, this is something of a 'non-post' really. It's just to say that I've noticed AB has chopped the end of my answer off but that there was nothing very important at the end anyway!

Chris

[B00]

Just as an idle Q.....how would someone unscrupulous get their mitts on your photo in the 1st place?

[Buddy]

BOO

Its not an idle Q at all.You hear about coptrights and things like that and say you were to for arguements sake send the negative to someone because they were interested whats to stop anyone claiming its theirs.

Anyway I posted this question for advice because I dont have a clue and I thank you all for the very constructive replies - much appreciated!

[B00]

Ahhh thanks buddy- now im curious over ya piccies.....lol