Dear Steve, "The copyright to any work we produce doesn't belong to us as individuals, but to our employer. This also applies to any freelance photographers we have working for us."
This only applies if you are paying them their national insurance and tax on their earnings and they are a full time employee, so your employee owns the copyright. If they are a genuine freelancer then below applies. This is only true if you have a contract for the freelance photographer that states that you own the copyright. There is an argument about who bought the materials, ie film. But it still stands in law that as the originator the freelance would own the copyright. It may be the case that if you bought the materials, then you have the right to access at any time, that is the only right. Even if he/she were using your studios equipment the originator still owns the copyright. So every camera you hire from calumet and shoot with means they own the copyright, no I don't think so. So if Mick jagger goes round to a mates house and sings a ditty ion his mates kit, then his mate would won the copyright, no mick is the originator so he owns it. 'or was he a "subcontractor" of Nathan's' Sorry steve wrong again. I suggest you get yourself a copy of beyond the lens and read the link I sent you, and look at intellectual property rights. The photographer regardless of being the originator owns all the copyright. This is the argument that goes on with large publishing houses like ipc and emap. Which is why you may want to join the epuk list for more of a low, down. All of this is law, but as some of it is a civil case, it depends on how big your pockets are and some criminal when profit has been made. Eg, I go round a m8's house and copy the latest kylie album to listen on my way home from a top weekend (civil case) I copy kylies album and sell down the local car boot sale (criminal) Ian Reynolds =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
