If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Marc 182 writes: Copyright law is national and international. The jurisdiction has little to do with it, and the contract doesn't trump the law. The jurisdiction has everything to do with it, since local laws determine what is and is not legal and what can and cannot be done. International law is not important since there is no international government to enforce it. Just out of curiosity, are either of you attorneys, or are you both just speaking from your understanding? Walt |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Walt writes:
Just out of curiosity, are either of you attorneys, or are you both just speaking from your understanding? I am not an attorney, and I speak only from my (significant) understanding of the issues. Note, however, that a lot of attorneys seem to understand the topic even less than I do, unless it is their specialty, so beware. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
On April 01 2004, SD wrote:
If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the negatives. That's not generally how it works. At least not here in the US. -- Carl Miller --------- Using: OUI 1.9.2 Pro from http://www.ouisoft.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Marc 182 writes:
And author of the online book, "How to be a Sleazy Photographer and get Away with it, Legally!" I'm not familiar with it. Do you have a URL? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Subject: Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
From: SD Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004 11:19 AM Message-id: Historically, the photographs (the negatives or raw digital images in today's world) have always been the property of the photographer, not the client. We are artists, not technicians, and our work belongs to us. The client simply purchases the right to view, publish, or own reproductions of our work. That is just wrong. No he's plain right. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless there is an agreement signed that he is doing the assignment as "work for hire". At least here in the U.S. and w/ U.S. copyright law, I don't know whether India is a signator of The Byrne Convention which ensures certain copyright law(s) be respected in whose countries are signators so I can't speak for Indian copyright law Let me compare your idea to my work. Not comparable. If you are an employee then the firm that hires you to do your work owns the copyright for that work. You are a salaried employee doing "work for hire" as opposed to free lance work. Wedding photography is "free lance work" therefore the photographer owns the copyright to the wedding work he does not the client. You have a regular salary and most likely certain benefits (medical or otherwise) you are (most likely) a hired employee. Here in the U.S. a client pays a fee for usage and he is a client not an employer, freelance work is not considered a salaried employment/work for hire but "free lance" and as suvh all rights unless otherwise stated go to the photographer whether you like it or not. As a photographer for, let's say my wedding, you are basically on a contract with me for that time. Whatever you do in that time is owned by me and you are paid for the work you do. We are paid for the work that we do _not_ for the copyright. No it is not owned by you, you pay for rights and specific usage(s) and time but _copyright remains with the photographer_ unless you have a signed agreement with the photographer that states otherwise. That's U.S. copyright law. Like it or not, its that simple. I got married in India and my parents not only have the negs but also the master tapes of all the Videos. See comments above. However, back when I was doing wedding photography, I did allow my clients to purchase the negatives from me. In fact, I prefered that they do. I charged a hefty fee for the negs, but then I didn't have to put out any more time and effort hand holding weapy brides and dealing with grooms trying to prove their manhood by "negotiating" with the photographer. Hehe.. what do photographers do with the negatives anyway? Keep them on file for reprints, another source of income, or perhaps with a model release, sell the images commercially, or if no model release is available and the contract permits it, to use the images for your portfolio and/or for editorial (non-commercial) sales. I never sold the negs on my other work. Nor would I. Clients with "SD"'s attitude were referred elsewhere. Life's too short. Yeah what you do with your other work is upto you. But as long as you are being paid by me to do the work, I own the work. You own nothing here in the U.S., not the copyright or anything else other than the time and skill and whatever prints you pay for. Copyright always remains with the photographer unless stated in writing/contract otherwise. Photographers who saw your attitude and wanted to retain their right would simply be advised not to work with you. You own nothing, not the film, not the copyright, we are not your whores, the power of your money ends where copyright law(s) begins. Even if it was your film, your developing, etc. - the copyright to any images created remains with the photographer who created the images. Like in the software world, the company owns the work I do in the time they pay for it. You are hired as an employee with a salary, half of federal taxes are paid by the employer (here in the U.S.) and if you are a free lance (nad perhaps evenif you are an employee) you probably signed some kind of agreement that the code you create belongs to them as they don't want their source code to belong to anybody. Photogrpahers, unless they were hired on "work for hire" terms are defacto considered free lancers with full power/possesion of their own copyright unless explicitly stated (in writing) otherwise. In India YMMV. What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me. Not relevant, the photographer in a wedding is a frelance not your employee _regardless of the fact you are paying him/her money_ to do a job(s). You are not paying his benefits or half his taxes nor do you have any work for hire agreement with most wedding photographers (who are freelancers). Now if your computer company had an inhouse regularly salaried (and benefits/taxes covered by the company) employee whose job function was to do work for hire weddings and other types of photography then the copyright would belong to that company. But outside photographers, wedding or otherwise, unless there is a contractual agreement stating otherwise between the photographer and the company are considered "free lancers" and not doing "work for hire", _so in the case of an outside freelance photographer it is the photographer who owns the copyright_ - whether you like it or agree with it or not. Period. Exclamation point. End of story. I can sell the software (like prints) but I wouldn't sell the source code (like negatives). Not like the negatives, see above. Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
BIG SNIPS
In order for a contract to be formed each party must give something of value to the other, it must be an exchange. If a clause of the contract confers reuse rights to the photographer, something of value must also be transferred to the customer. It could be anything, a free 8x10, a discount on the session cost, even a single buck politely handed over. Whatever it is, it has to be clear and explicit. Where in copyright law or elsewhere in the law does it state that a contract must be a bilateral agreement in order to be legally enforcable? Isn't a unilateral contract also enforcable? WHy does something have to be in exchange for something else. A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether something is exchanged is besides the point - though few people will sign things without getting something in return, those that would sign a contract (ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not. It is till a legal agreement I beleive the same may apply for a witness, that a witness is not needed, despite what one may have heard otherwise to make a contract "legal." Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Lewis Lang wrote:
Where in copyright law or elsewhere in the law does it state that a contract must be a bilateral agreement in order to be legally enforcable? Isn't a unilateral contract also enforcable? WHy does something have to be in exchange for something else. A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether something is exchanged is besides the point - though few people will sign Part of the legal defination of a contract is that something is exchanged. You'll see contracts that have $1 going to one party just to prove something has been exchanged. things without getting something in return, those that would sign a contract (ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not. It is till a legal Did the model get paid? Did the model get prints? Did the model get to learn how to be a model? Nick |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Lewis Lang writes:
Isn't a unilateral contract also enforcable? By definition, a contract is never unilateral, as it is an agreement between two parties. A license, however, can be unilateral: you can grant a license to your photo to anyone without requiring anything in exchange, if you wish. WHy does something have to be in exchange for something else. A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether something is exchanged is besides the point ... All contracts must involve some sort of exchange. One person pays, the other delivers goods or services, etc. ... those that would sign a contract (ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not. Not quite. It's a contract if the model is paid or compensated in some way. Otherwise it's not. If a model isn't paid, he or she can rescind the release at will, within limits (if the model withdraws permission retroactively, it may be possible to recover the costs of doing so from him or her). Photographers can avoid this by always providing something in exchange for a release, such as a print or a scan, or money. It is till a legal agreement I beleive the same may apply for a witness, that a witness is not needed, despite what one may have heard otherwise to make a contract "legal." A witness is not needed in general, although some jurisdictions require them for certain types of contracts. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heat absorbing glass or one-size-fits all glass carrier for 23CII negative popping problem | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 2 | June 1st 04 01:47 PM |
B&H has the worst customer service on the planet. | bozak | Advanced Photography | 340 | February 8th 04 07:37 PM |
B&H has the worst customer service on the planet. | Stephen H. Westin | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 10 | February 3rd 04 09:46 PM |
B&H Photo has horrible customer service... | generic eric | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 13 | January 31st 04 10:25 PM |