On 2/11/2014 11:05 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Stanley Halpin <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
And, as I pointed out earlier, he's completely screwed from the
standpoint of model releases.
Just out of curiosity, what would be the legal ramifications if instead
of buying photos, he went and found an established photographer who
would let him be a second shooter on some weddings ... a photographer
who would permit him to use the images for his portfolio?
I guess I'll have to talk to some of the local photographers I know
through PPNC and see if they'd allow it.
--
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.
