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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't - it's a no-win situation all to often these days. Imagine the fuss if the pictures HAD been copyrighted. The song is brilliant, thank you. Geoff. They WERE copyright, of the photographer herself. She could have just gone somewhere else, of course, but that would have spoiled the story. A few years ago a local Snappy Snaps phoned me to let me know that someone had asked them to copy a 10X8 of mine. To their credit they had declined so calling me was a professional courtesy. So there is another side to thie story. Ausitn Mitchell is quite wrong when he says that Boots were not responsible for protecting copyright- they WOULD be liable if they couldn't show due diligence. And when all said and done it is a little unuusual for a student to go to Boots rather than a prolab or the college's own facilities. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
On 10-04-04 8:42 , spacecadet wrote:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't - it's a no-win situation all to often these days. Imagine the fuss if the pictures HAD been copyrighted. The song is brilliant, thank you. Geoff. They WERE copyright, of the photographer herself. That's exactly it. They should have asked and when she replied "mine", that should have been the end of it. She could have just gone somewhere else, of course, but that would have spoiled the story. A few years ago a local Snappy Snaps phoned me to let me know that someone had asked them to copy a 10X8 of mine. To their credit they had declined so calling me was a professional courtesy. So there is another side to thie story. Ausitn Mitchell is quite wrong when he says that Boots were not responsible for protecting copyright- they WOULD be liable if they couldn't show due diligence. That ends with asking the question and getting a satisfactory answer. And when all said and done it is a little unuusual for a student to go to Boots rather than a prolab or the college's own facilities. If she was recovering costs/being paid for the photo then it may have been appropriate that she not use the school facilities. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
And verily, didst spacecadet hastily babble thusly:
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. The photographer owns the copyright UNTIL he hands over said copyright to anyone else. If the OP chooses to give the copyright to the photographs to the commissioner, that's up to him and him alone. -- | | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and | | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" | | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
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. .... and so on. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
In message , Bruce
writes If someone orders prints from digital files that appear professionally made, but the person ordering the prints does not appear to be a professional, Go on then, I'll bite. What does a professional photographer look like? -- Paul Giverin My Photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
On 2010-04-04 11:47:46 -0700, Paul Giverin said:
In message , Bruce writes If someone orders prints from digital files that appear professionally made, but the person ordering the prints does not appear to be a professional, Go on then, I'll bite. What does a professional photographer look like? He/she has a "PP" credential tattoo behind the left ear. Accept no less. For those "Pros" here who have yet to receive your "PP" credential tag, for a nominal fee I will provide you with a voucher. This can be exchanged at your tattoo artist of choice for the subtle application of this professional badge of honor. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
wrote in message ... And verily, didst spacecadet hastily babble thusly: 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. The photographer owns the copyright UNTIL he hands over said copyright to anyone else. If the OP chooses to give the copyright to the photographs to the commissioner, that's up to him and him alone. Generally true, except in the case of "work for hire". The OP apparently considers being commissioned as work for hire, which is valid. But as a professional photographer, I don't do "work for hire"; I retain copyright on all my work. The person creating the photograph is the copyright holder as of the moment the image is fixed in a permanent form. He may turn over any rights he wants to for whatever fee he may or may not charge. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
When your photos are just too good.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 10:11:00 -0400
Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-04 8:42 , spacecadet wrote: Ausitn Mitchell is quite wrong when he says that Boots were not responsible for protecting copyright- they WOULD be liable if they couldn't show due diligence. That ends with asking the question and getting a satisfactory answer. But that assumes that the person manning the photo counter is capable of recognising a satisfactory answer when it is given, and that's clearly not always the case. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Friday Photos | mmyvusenet | Digital Photography | 4 | July 20th 10 10:28 PM |
Looking for a good site to display photos. | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 37 | May 17th 07 06:30 PM |
How to Take Good Photos in Museums and Cathedrals | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | January 18th 06 05:30 AM |
Good Photos / Good Zoom | NIALLBRUCE | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 13th 04 05:28 PM |