----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Johnston Subject: Basic copyright
> Not true at all. Not only the negatives, but also all the rights to the > picture remain with the photographer. The client purchases the physical > object(s) only--the print(s) or transparencies, plus (possibly) limited > rights as negotiated. Basic copyright law, Canadian style: This is the photography relevent section of the Canadian Copyright act: 2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright. Work made in the course of employment (3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, What this says, in simple easy to understand English is that the guy who hires the photographer, and pays to have the photograph taken has first ownership of copyright, unless he has signed a contract to the contrary. Photographers can get around it by not charging a sitting fee. This allows them to say they didn't get paid to take the picture, and allows them first ownership of copyright. Personally, I think the Canadian model is fair to both parties. I see no reason why a person who pays someone compensation to do a job should not actually own the job he has paid for. I don't know, or really care about how copyright works in other countries, as I work and live in Canada. I do think that photographers and their customers owe it to themselves to be aware of how copyright can affect them in the jurisdiction in which they live. William Robb
