----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Are your photos too good?
On 18 Jun 2005 at 11:43, William Robb wrote:
The law, in this instance is not about intent, it's about actions.
And yes, we are a really easy target to take potshots at, so we are
exceptionally careful.
We use customers photos from time to time, with written permission.
Verbal agreements don't stand up well if the customer changes their mind
after the fact.
I don't understand this at all. Why should the copy/print station owners
be the
discretionary party, they can't possibly have a clue of the ownership of a
digital image devoid of ownership details. Why not force customers to sign
a
document which certifies that they are the copyright holder or that they
have
the express permission of the copyright holder to make a print. Surely
this
would later allow the copyright owners sue the deceitful customers?
It's because of the way the law reads, or at least has been interpreted.
The party who gains commercially is the responsible party.
That means when I make a picture and sell it, I have gained commercially. If
that image was owned by someone else, they have suffered a commercial loss.
The copyright owners don't want to sue decietful customers, it's bad for
getting repeat business or referals. It's much easier and generally
financially more viable to go after a large faceless corporation than
someone who's wedding you photographed two weeks ago.
William Robb
