Thread: Just a question
View Single Post
  #65  
Old September 19th 18, 10:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Just a question

On 09/19/2018 06:59 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 00:09:22 UTC+1, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/18/2018 06:17 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip

I believ that even as a pro photographer that any picture yuo atke while working for the company then the copyright belongs to them the company.


I think you are getting into the "Work For Hire" issue. It's a murky
issue, and can keep lawyers billing many hours!


Anything can keep a lawyers for hours when they are earniong by the hour.
If you are employed by a company they do own the work you do for them.

snip work-for-hire example: fireman photo at Oklahoma bombing.


Work-for-Hire is not a universal concept. If a photographer thinks his
work might come under it, he can negotiate with his employer for an
exclusion.


I'm not sure what Work-for-Hire actually means, is it like freelance.


I would say that "work-for-hire" is probably the opposite of free lance.
If you are employed to create photographs (or even if you are employed
for another purpose, but photographs might be incidental to that
purpose), and your employer provides the camera gear and side-items,
then your photos belong to the employer, _UNLESS_ you have negotiated a
work-for-hire exception.

A free-lancer generally is hired for an event (that may or may not have
already occurred). He usually provides his own camera gear, and sells a
finished photograph. That photograph is probably his own copyright,
unless the employer previously executes a work-for-hire agreement. For
example, many publications have a fine print paragraph that says items
submitted for possible publication become the property of the publisher.
In that case, if I submit a photo to "The Daily Muckraker" for
publication I have given up my copyright, since they warned me of their
policy.






Here at university any work a student does while here at university while on their course is owned by the university NOT the student, even if they buy and pay for the hardware themselves it is the colleges property.


That 'sounds' a bit flakey and unfair, but if the university makes it
clear up front, well then, it's a learning experience for the student.


That's the way it is done, it's the same for most people.

snip monkey copyright


--
Ken Hart