From: Keith Whaley
William Robb wrote:
> 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...
keith whaley
I think you're both missing my point though.
The way the law is written, if the "homeowner" (i.e. customer with
photos on CD) comes in to purchase "filters" for that A/C (i.e. make
prints at the mini-lab), *I* can be held financially liable for
violating the plumber's (i.e. the photographer) property rights.
I am an innocent third party being put in the middle of a dispute I had
nothing to do with in the first place. Whether he's morally entitled to
those rights or not, THE LAW makes the presumption that *I* am
financially liable.
I'm all in favor of photographers having rights to their intellectual
property. I'm a photographer myself ... occasionally.
I just don't think it's such a good idea to put myself in a position to
risk losing everything I own and ending up spending the rest of my days
living under a bridge somewhere because of a stupid, badly written law
and photographers who are too lazy to provide their customers with a
copyright release.
The LAW, as written, says the photographer gets to sue ME, not the
person who actually made the copies, but ME because I run the machine
that was used. The LAW, as written, says the photographer can sue ME for
1/2 million dollars per print for each and every print the customer made
using the equipment I "control".
... and my only defense, under the law AS WRITTEN, is to prove the
photographer doesn't own the copyright to the prints in dispute - which
the LAW, as written, says he does.
Screw that. You ain't got a copyright release, I'll turn the machine off
and call the manager to deal with it. If he wants to assume the risk, he
can turn the machine back on.
--
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.
