Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:
Draco wrote:
... The copyright becomes in effect at time of
creation. Only time it doesn't belong to the creator of the image is
when it is a "work for hire". Meaning a commisioned image.

'Work for hire' only applies to employees, not single independently
comissioned works AFAIK. Photographers often charge hourly and retain
copyright.

Under the Dutch copyright law (I think the change came from a EU directive),
if you commission a portrait you get the right to distribute additional
copies.

But that's an exception. You are right about the 'work for hire'.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

'Work for hire' only applies to employees, not single independently
comissioned works AFAIK. Photographers often charge hourly and retain
copyright.

In engineering work "Work for Hire" is work performed under the
direction and supervision of the client. This is normally
interpreted to include work done to an approved proposal. Sometimes
the proposal specifies that rights are retained by the hired party
firm; any firm signing such a contract is acting foolishly.

I think the same extends to photography, work done under the
supervision of the client's art director belongs solely to the
client.

Printing has it's own odd interpretation of who owns what. If plates
are made the information on the plates belongs to the client but
the plates belong to the printer. This is a hangover from the days of
lithography on stone: the stone belonged to the printer who resurfaced
it for the next print job. Some of this transferred to photography:
the negative belongs to the photographer but the image belongs to
the client.

Photography, from what I remember of reading about law as it
applies to the printing trade, has it's own arcane interpretations
and for some reason portraits are handled differently from other
photographs.

A book on copyright law is the only thing to consult if answers
are needed in this area. The law is arcane and subtle and filled
with exceptions - as the saying goes "Common sense isn't".

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Paul Furman wrote:



'Work for hire' only applies to employees, not single independently
comissioned works AFAIK. Photographers often charge hourly and retain
copyright.


Except in Canada where the person or co. commissioning the work retains
the copyright (unless given up in the contract).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Michael J Davis wrote:
Pudentame observed
Draco wrote:


The Flickr web base showcase of photography has a statement that the
copyright belongs to the photographer of the work shown. They can not
be held libel for another stealling an image to sell. T

Libel - An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing
or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or
standing in the community.

Liable - Legally responsible.

Oh thanks! I misread that, and couldn't see why libel came into
copyright matters!!!

And wasn't intended as a "flame" at Draco ... Floyd OTOH, hope he got
his asbestos undies singed.

Pudentame wrote:
And wasn't intended as a "flame" at Draco ... Floyd OTOH, hope he got
his asbestos undies singed.

Spelling flames can't scorch toast.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article .net,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
'Work for hire' only applies to employees, not single independently
comissioned works AFAIK. Photographers often charge hourly and retain
copyright.

In engineering work "Work for Hire" is work performed under the
direction and supervision of the client. This is normally
interpreted to include work done to an approved proposal. Sometimes
the proposal specifies that rights are retained by the hired party
firm; any firm signing such a contract is acting foolishly.

I think the same extends to photography, work done under the
supervision of the client's art director belongs solely to the
client.

It looks like the Dutch copyright has two different rules for a 'work for
hire' kind of construct:

The first one is the similar to what you just described, except that the one
who hires the artist has to provide both the design and has to supervise
the execution. Reading that text, if a photographers comes up with the ideas
and gets approval, it will not be consider a 'work for hire'.

The second one is that if somebody is employed to create copyrighted works,
then the employer gets the copyright.

So my guess is that in .nl, if an independent photographer is hired, and
comes with his own ideas about the images, then the photographer gets
the copyright.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
Michael lakediver.houston.rr.com wrote:
Seems to me that the terms of the contract, assuming there is one, will
determine who retains the copyright.

Yes and no. In some cases copyright can be assigned to someone else but
not always. The rights that come from the copyright can be assigned to
someone else, but not all of them.

And, without a written contract, if the parties disagree about the contents
of the agreement, it is always possible that the judge will just stick to
what the law says.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article .net,
It looks like the Dutch copyright has two different rules for a 'work for
hire' kind of construct:

The first one is the similar to what you just described, except that the
one
who hires the artist has to provide both the design and has to supervise
the execution. Reading that text, if a photographers comes up with the
ideas
and gets approval, it will not be consider a 'work for hire'.

The second one is that if somebody is employed to create copyrighted
works,
then the employer gets the copyright.

So my guess is that in .nl, if an independent photographer is hired, and
comes with his own ideas about the images, then the photographer gets
the copyright.


Seems to me that the terms of the contract, assuming there is one, will
determine who retains the copyright.

Philip Homburg wrote:


It looks like the Dutch copyright has two different rules for a 'work for
hire' kind of construct:

The first one is the similar to what you just described, except that the one
who hires the artist has to provide both the design and has to supervise
the execution. Reading that text, if a photographers comes up with the ideas
and gets approval, it will not be consider a 'work for hire'.

The second one is that if somebody is employed to create copyrighted works,
then the employer gets the copyright.

So my guess is that in .nl, if an independent photographer is hired, and
comes with his own ideas about the images, then the photographer gets
the copyright.



Would Dutch copyright law apply?

AFAIK, the photographer is/was in Iceland, and the thieves are in Britain.

In article ,
Pudentame wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:


It looks like the Dutch copyright has two different rules for a 'work for
hire' kind of construct:

The first one is the similar to what you just described, except that the one
who hires the artist has to provide both the design and has to supervise
the execution. Reading that text, if a photographers comes up with the ideas
and gets approval, it will not be consider a 'work for hire'.

The second one is that if somebody is employed to create copyrighted works,
then the employer gets the copyright.

So my guess is that in .nl, if an independent photographer is hired, and
comes with his own ideas about the images, then the photographer gets
the copyright.

Would Dutch copyright law apply?

AFAIK, the photographer is/was in Iceland, and the thieves are in Britain.

No, but the more recent chances are derived from EU directives, which the
UK also has to implement.

Anyhow, this discussion moved long past the original problem (in the original
case there was no relationship between the photographer and the publisher).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency