If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBCNews)
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)
'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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBCNews)
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBCNews)
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)
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) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)
"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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBCNews)
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBCNews)
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News) | Tony Polson | 35mm Photo Equipment | 51 | May 26th 07 09:57 AM |
copyright my images | ANDYsmith232 | Digital Photography | 7 | September 27th 06 05:55 PM |
Copyright/fair-use of other people's images | True211 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 105 | February 9th 05 09:14 PM |
Copyright/fair-use of other people's images | True211 | Digital Photography | 0 | January 14th 05 06:57 AM |
Just wondering...has GP posted any "Pro" images yet online? | Richard Cockburn | Digital Photography | 9 | June 26th 04 05:21 PM |