Folks: This list is designed for technical legal discussions
about the law of government and religion, and is aimed generally at law
professors who specialize in the field. Please keep list discussions focused
on that, rather than on general discussions about other areas of the law (or
even on nontechnical discussions about law and religion).
The list custodian
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Len
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:26 PM
To: Mark Scarberry; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: A right not to be compelled to create expression?
Regardless of the models, I did not pay thousands for my photos. A few hundred
for the graduation photos, and a few hundred for the wedding photos 30 years
ago.
It is my understanding that the studio protects all photos by way of copyright
that are posted and accessed via its website services. That condition would
make sense, as it protects the clients as well as itself. However, that was a
service I wasn't interested in, and purchased one of their more traditional
packages.
How interesting that my experience was so unusual.
So, in your opinion, I retain copyright to the oil-on-canvas portraits I was
commissioned to do in the mid 1970's? Interesting. True, there aren't many
(seven) and I was paid cash, but I was able to eat and to put gas in my place
of lodging. Would I now be able to demand access to these works, photograph
them and use them in a portfolio?
I apologize to all, but I've had some disappointing experience with
intellectual property rights. A firm I worked for many years ago demanded that
I sign over rights to a R&D project I had worked on for two years, in exchange
for wages already paid. I had not been under such an agreement up until that
time. The license to that work was then sold to a high-profile client for an
amount in the low seven figures. The firm's attorney threatened me with legal
action if I did not sign off and accept the token $1. I did, and was
terminated three weeks later. My name remains on six of the patents, however.
To me they're worth exactly the value of the paper they're printed on.
I have been required to sign over intellectual property rights as a condition
of hire ever since. The conditions even include any items I might design or
invent on my own time that are unrelated to the company's business. Many
people I've worked with have also had to sign non-compete clauses, which have
kept talented (and well-paid) engineers out of work for years, effectively
ending their careers.
I therefore don't have a high regard for such laws.
More relevant to the topic, I think it is rather sad and pathetic that the work
of an artisan who mechanically produces work for hire is considered to be on
par with an artist who produces creative work. This lumps in and treats as
equals the neighborhood photographer with Annie Leibovitz and Ansel Adams.
Producing memorabilia is not art, it is a craft. I'm sure all present know the
difference, or should.
I understand what the laws say and have read the commentaries with great
interest. In my opinion mere competence with a camera is not art. Art, and
therefore speech is something else. I'm sure no one here will mind that I
don't repeat the obvious Dickensian reference.
Thanks for your patience.
-Z
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
