Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-04 12:33 , spacecadet wrote:


It's a real problem. I shoot weddings (among other things) for a
living and, in most cases, the deal includes a CD-ROM of high
resolution images with the copyright owned by whoever commissioned me
to shoot the wedding.
There have been several instances of problems with the copyright
holders (or another family member) getting prints made. So I print
the name of the copyright holder on each CD. Even that hadn't stopped
the problem, though, and I have had to get involved personally on
several occasions. Plus, my initiative isn't too popular with other
social photographers who still demand to retain the copyright of
commissioned work. ;-)



Are you sure you're aware of the provisions of the 1988 Act? The
photographer DOES own the copyright. The commissioner of social
photography merely has the right not to have it published without his
permission. That was the big change.
You appear to be giving away something which belongs to you.

I don't no what the law is in the UK.

In Canada, he who commissions the photos owns the copyright unless a
contract or agreement states otherwise. (eg: if you hire a photog for a
wedding you own the work by default).

In the US it is the photographer who owns the copyright unless a
contract or agreement states otherwise.

California sales tax rules are weird about insisting all photographic
services are products to be taxed, never hourly unless you're an
employee, which I find ridiculous for architectural or product/sculptor
type shoots. I just do those hourly & they get the files. I don't do
much of that though.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam