On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:36:03PM +0100, Bob W wrote: > > As for John's comment about 'a copyright', this seems to me to be incorrect. > The photographer is the author of the photograph and is the sole copyright > holder (except where explicitly assigned). If the photographer has breached > someone else's copyright in taking the photograph, that does not change the > photographer's copyright in the photo itself. So, if I take a photo in your > house, and it happens to include one of your photos, you do not gain a share > in the copyright of mine although you may try to sue me for violating your > copyright.
I think you're arguing semantics, not content. I can prevent your publication of the photograph (or seek recompense under law) because I own the copyright in some part of the subject matter. That means I have a copyright interest in the photograph. So do you, as the photographer - I can't publish without your permission, either. So, in effect, we can both control the publication of the photograph, by using just the rights granted under copyright law. Just how does that differ from what you think of as my gaining a share in your copyright?
