On Feb 11, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I perfectly understand everybody's outrage from this craigslist ad. > But what if I told you that it is socially acceptable and even totally legal > (at least in the US) and it has been going for ages? And this all makes sense, for example, in the case where I hire two assistants to help me shoot a wedding. Not just with lighting, etc. but actual shooting. Those are my photos, the assistants are doing work for hire. As a good boss I could let them use their shots in their personal portfolio, but I don’t need to. The craigslist example, though, is off in another dimension. The guy wants to buy existing stuff and pawn it off as his own. It might be legal in a copyright case but it is fraudulent, deceptive, slimy, inappropriate behavior as far as I am concerned. stan > > I am talking about ghost writing. If it is acceptable and is done at all > levels, including presidents and celebrities. > And the US copyright law supports it. It is called "work for hire". > More over, (are you ready for this?!) > the person/entity who comissioned the work for hire becomes the AUTHOR > of that work. [*] > Look at what is known "Title 17" of the US copyright law, Chapter 2, > Paragraph 201(b): > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html : > > "Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire, the employer > or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author > for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly > agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the > rights comprised in the copyright." > > If ghost writing is acceptable and legal, why ghost photographing is not? > > So, what that chap did not do right from the point of view of the law, > is that he/she should have asked to shoot those photos for him, for > this specific purpose, and specifically as a "work for hire". > Then it would fully legal. And then he could claim his authorship of > the said photographs. > > ----- > [*] One has to be very careful with the "work for hire". It has to be > specified explicitly in the contract, as there are plenty of exceptions. > E.g. unless you spell things out explicitly while hiring a photographer, > say, for your wedding shoot, the photographer retains the copyright > (and the authorship). This is in part because it is based on customary > procedure in photography business, where unless explicitly stated otherwise, > (examples include but not limited to cases where the photographer gets > a W-2 form) it is not a work for hire (from the copyright law point of view). > > > Igor > > > On 2/10/2014 4:47 PM, Brian Walters wrote: >> Can't be bothered taking your own photos to illustrate your commercial >> photography business? >> >> No problem - just buy someone else's work. >> >> >> http://petapixel.com/2014/02/10/rant-wedding-photographer-wants-buy-good-wedding-shots-pad-portfolio/ >> >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/mrwmz4f >> >> > > -- > 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. -- 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.
