Someday, I am going to have to read up on Canadian copyrigth law. Of course in my last look around I found that apparently some lobbying has been done re copyright here in the US, as there are now several types of work that are defined as WFH unless otherwise agreed. Which was one of the things the new copyright law was supposed to get away from. That is it had the same rules in all cases. Now it changes depending what you are doing. And, no Mr & Mrs Joe Public were not included in those catagories.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:01 AM Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Feroze Kistan > Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE > GUNS. > > > > Hi William, > > If the employer owns the work, does that include the negs as > well or > > just the right to reproduce the images and the negs stay in > the > > photographers > > possession? > > In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the employer > owns the work. Why shouldn't he? He is paying to have it done. I > don't see why this is such a hard concept, most of us have jobs, > we have employers, and whatever work comes off our desks is > owned by that employer. > Being a photographer employed by someone else is no different in > concept from being a factory worker building the camera the > photographer uses. > The employer owns whatever it is you have created, and you don't > get ownership in it. Creativity is a commodity that is bought > and sold every day. > Any time you solve a problem at work, you have just sold your > creativity. > > William Robb >
