Interesting. It has been awhile since I last researched copyright law. Supposedly, do to the international copyright agreement it is supposed to be the same in all signatory countries. However, what is often quoted in this list by non-US folks is completely contrary to the US law. Which says in effect that in absence of a specific work-for-hire agreement the photographer, and the photographer is specifically defined as the guy who pushes the button, all rights belong to the photographer. Under the old law photographers were not specifically mentioned and many court decisions varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which was why very specific law was written into the new copyright law. Since then it appears that amendments defining specific situations as work-for-hire have been added. Before that work-for-hire was defined to exist only when the photographer was an employee, that is receiving wages or salary and having taxes and FICA taken out. In all other cases it was to be assumed that it was not a work for hire unless there was a contract stating it was to be considered a work for hire. So unless it is one of those specific situations, or there is an agreement stating it is work for hire, or the photographer is a paid employee of the company. The rights belong to the photographer. Wedding and portrait photography are not listed in those specific situations. There are a lot of copyright sites on the web. I suggest looking at the ASMP site.
I may someday make the effort to look up the copyright law pertaining to photography in other countries, as I do wonder whether it is THAT different, or people are just siting what they thing is logical. Law is not logical, never has been and never will be. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:00 PM Subject: Copyright matters OT > It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the > subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of > filters should it happen again. I've changed it again in the hope that most > filters will not delete it without it being read. > > Photographers don't usually hand over the negatives after they have > completed an ordinary job, like taking pictures of a wedding, or making > studio portraits. They hang on to them and hope more prints will be ordered. > I'm also willing to bet that if the client demanded the negatives there > would be immediate disagreement about who owns them. I'm also sure that if > it got to court, the client would win and get his negatives, unless there > was some kind of prior agreement. But who would sign an agreement allowing a > photographer to keep pictures of them? To what end? What possible reason, or > excuse, can a photographer have for doing this if the matter came up? I'm > quite sure most people would say no. And perhaps question the photographer's > intentions. It's silly and in my opinion unethical to try to hold on to > negatives that belong to someone else. If a client gets a load of prints > made elsewhere that's too bad. But what a client cannot do is lay claim to > the pictures. He cannot say he took them and if he does its time for > litigation. But it can get very complicated. Copyright Law might look quite > simple on paper, but specialist litigators make vast amounts of money when > it comes to the application. > > When a client pays to have something - say products - photographed its very > clear that everything to do with them, including the negatives, belong to > him - not the picture taker. > > The copyright of printed matter, novels, biographies and such-like is a > little more difficult. An author passes the copyright over to the publisher > as part of a contract - usually. I didn't (don't) but such an agreement has > to be negotiated. So anyone getting a photo book ready beware. It's best to > retain the copyright oneself, if at all possible. But Daniel knows more > about this stuff an I'm sure he'd have more useful comments than these. > > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > >
