> > Nice thing is, however, as a practitioner in either, I > suspect you have > to know all about Federal _and_ Commercial contract law. > Except for details here and there, contract law doesn't > differ much from > place to place. > > > It's ludicrous that a photographer can claim ownership of > something he > > was hired to make, and paid, often very expensively, in > full for making. > > It's like Joe Airwrench claiming ownership of my truck > because he bolted > > the driver's side front wheel onto it. > > > > William Robb > > Yessir. I agree with you. > It would seem to me, that in a court of law, the mere fact > that he was > HIRED to make the image(s) automatically flips the ownership > question to > the person who contracted with the photographer as being the owner of > the output. That's what the contractor paid for. > > My hard working plumber doesn't own any of the copper piping he > installed in my house. I do. Nor the A/C he bought with my money and > installed in my master BR. > He's been paid and that's that... > > Payment of the photographer's bill/invoice is the end of the process. > The photographer got paid for all his/her efforts, and the contractor > got his/her images. Contract complete... >
In copyright law there is no automatic assignment. If the contract with the photographer does not explicitly assign copyright to the hirer then the photographer retains the copyright. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
