|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2006 06:20:21 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The "original" is the negative, and the photographer owns the copyright unless he releases it in writing.
So what you are telling me is this poor old lady paid someone to take photos for themself?
(I mean, isn't that like paying McDonald's to make the burger and then they get to keep and eat the burger too?)
I mean, I might understand buying a print from a photographer. But I've never quite gotten this "let me pay you to photograph me, and you get to own the photograph"
If she paid the photographer than I would expect that such is a work for hire and therefore the old lady should have received the masters. IMHO, it is the photographer who robbed a poor old lady.
Otherwise, the photographer should have taken the photo freely and simply sold her a print.
Doing both just seems like robbery to me...and I imagine taking advantage of an elderly woman isn't to high up there in the site of God/Karma/Etc. And if there is none, then who gives a crap. Survival of the fittest. If they can charge for it...more power to them. If she can print it...more power to her.
'nuff said... |
I am very much afraid that 'nuff said.... would not hold a great deal of weight in any court of law. The law is truly not interested in who broke the law, but rather in the fact that they did.
If indeed jurisprudence was swayed in allowing breaches committed by the elderly , the very young or the very beautiful, I fear that there would be a run on "For Hire" miscreants fitting the parameters you seem to allude to.
"Nuff said" just will not suffice in the scenario before us.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 06:44:35 PM · #27 |
"I can guarantee you that this old lady signed a contract with these photographers that clearly outlined what she would get and what her rights were. That's a common practice with any professional photographer that I know."
And how was the contract presented to her? If I said this contract was just some legal stuff to protect the company in case you got hurt or such. And it may have been such but might have been more. (Could even have said you sign all your property over to me.) The courts can declare the contract null and void if they feel it was mis-represented to the client.
Oh,...and it usually is...
Originally posted by "bear_music":
We have got some people here discussing "reality"; these are the copyright laws, tjis is what they permit. Others are discussing some sort of "ideal" they visualize, in which these laws are other than what they are. I see no point in that. |
My dear bear, we are discussing laws. It is not uncommon for multiple laws to overlap and potentially negate or compromise each other. I have detailed several "laws" and in fact "copyright" laws that may in deed clash with the interpretations put forth. And were it to go to court there are precedents to support both sides. Hence, a judge would have to make the final ruling.
Originally posted by "bear_music":
As a parallel, it's established copyright law that even though you may purchase an otiginal work of art from a painter, say, or a sculptor, you do NOT purchase the right to reproduce that work as you see fit. |
Interesting that you point such out, because all the time the artist put in, all the costs of paint, etc. Are included in the painting's cost. The purchaser bought a "painting". However, when a painter is commissioned and the time and effort is specifically paid for. It is the case that the painting and rights belong to the commissioner and not the artist.
Originally posted by "bear_music":
The way most professional photographers price out their work is based on the assumption of future sales of the work. |
Do you have the means to offer such service? I think very few photographers maintain in reproducible quality all the originals for the hirer to re-purchase if so desired. If in deed they paid you to take such shots and you are the exclusive seller, then you might be obligated to provide such prints on request and if you don't have a clause specifying the term that you will maintain originals for reproduction you could find yourself obligated.
Originally posted by "bear_music":
When we worked as architectural photographers, a continual thorn in our sides was that clients would GIVE our work to magazines to publish, where they shoukld have given our name to the magazine and they could negotiate with us for publication rights. We succesfully recovered monies from every magazine that used our work in this manner; every print had stamped on it, every transparency was sleeved with, a copyright notice.
|
To me, this seems to put forth a question if it's a continual thorn. IMHO
And business to business one might be more understanding of legal contracts but it gets ridiculous when you get handed a stack of several sheets of papers and are expected to read it in 5 minutes. Especially when it's written in legalese un-understandable by the common person. (But hey, a lot like such advantages...to me...I call it swindling.)
"What is paid for an image should be based on use."
So where does it stop? should I pay you ever time I look at the image? how about every time you listen to a CD? you say no...but it's only a matter of time before CDs are obsolete and you have to pay per listen.
"And the disruption of this established order is the beef professional photographers have against royalty-free stock sites. "
An order that's only been establish for a few decades. Beforehand, it was not uncommon for the photographer to develop his own film, then later with development houses it was advantageous because the photographer developed so much film he got a discount. Now, that the technology has made the means to do such affordably new issues arise. People realize the costs and values have changed. Photographers do not.
What right to beef does any professional photographer have with royalty-free stock sites. (Assuming they're using their own photos or those submitted voluntarily.)
"I am very much afraid that 'nuff said.... would not hold a great deal of weight in any court of law. The law is truly not interested in who broke the law, but rather in the fact that they did."
And as I've pointed out, there is question as to whether she did or not. And much depends on which particular law you look at. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 06:47:26 PM · #28 |
I always find it interesting that those industries that most complain regarding copyright & patent infringement are those who's industries and performed functions are in jeopardy by the emergence of new technologies.
*lol*
What happens the day someone builds the wedding bot. The machine that takes perfect photos. Super hi-res photos. Captured in dozens and dozens of angles. Perfectly adjusted to the lighting. And the photos are 90% as good as most pro's and better than quite a few of them. And one merely rents said device and selects their photos.
And then what happens when they get cheap enough in 150 yrs for everyone to just buy one. What then...
???
Are you defending the industry or are you defending your art. I'd be more concerned about the latter.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 06:50:08 PM · #29 |
Is it right for his son to sell a painting of John Lennon's likeness?
One might argue sure, he produced the painting, paid for all the supplies, etc. Another might argue that such likeness and the rights to use John Lennon's likeness belong to his estate.
Then if you choose the first, why can't the elderly woman reproduce the likeness. If you choose the latter, than I hope you've never photographed a building.
And if you mention the "Law" realize the law changes and most of this battle is about how the law should be revised to address conflicts. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 11:40:03 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by movieman:
Well, not that I condone it, but, if the photos were of her, she obviously owns an original, right, in which case she can do whatever she wants of it, including making copies of it, right? As long as she's not selling them? |
Wrong. The "original" is the negative, and the photographer owns the copyright unless he releases it in writing. The customer buys a copy for their own use. It's no different than buying a cimputer program then copying it to CDs and giving it to your friends. It's theft.
R. |
Can't you make a back-up copy for yourself in case something happens to the original, which is why there are DVD copying programs, and they're completely legal. I'm just assuming the same thing goes for a photograph, and I don't really see why it wouldn't. |
|
|
|
01/04/2006 12:29:58 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"I can guarantee you that this old lady signed a contract with these photographers that clearly outlined what she would get and what her rights were. That's a common practice with any professional photographer that I know."
And how was the contract presented to her? If I said this contract was just some legal stuff to protect the company in case you got hurt or such. And it may have been such but might have been more. (Could even have said you sign all your property over to me.) The courts can declare the contract null and void if they feel it was mis-represented to the client.
Oh,...and it usually is...
|
I have no idea how it was presented to her. It wouldn't matter. I am sure that it was a standard contract for this industry and I am fairly confident that it didn't sign over all her personal belongings to the photographer. The photographers who do that sort of thing work on the other side of town from us where copyright laws do not apply.
It doesn't really matter to me that you don't understand the law and how it works. You can feel for the old lady all you want. You can let her be a victim if you like. You can also wish the law worked some other way too. It's all irrelevant. There is a law and it is current and it hasn't been changed in many years. Write your congressman if you think the current copyright laws are unfair.
I have come to my personal resolution on this issue and I will deal with it tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2006 12:50:49 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I have come to my personal resolution on this issue and I will deal with it tomorrow. |
I would be interested in your resolution if you wouldn't mind sharing. Are you going to confront your boss?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2006 02:10:15 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "bear_music":
As a parallel, it's established copyright law that even though you may purchase an otiginal work of art from a painter, say, or a sculptor, you do NOT purchase the right to reproduce that work as you see fit. |
Interesting that you point such out, because all the time the artist put in, all the costs of paint, etc. Are included in the painting's cost. The purchaser bought a "painting". However, when a painter is commissioned and the time and effort is specifically paid for. It is the case that the painting and rights belong to the commissioner and not the artist.
It all depends on the contract. Illustrators, for example, frequently work just like photographers, producing work on assignment and selling specific usage rights while retaining the copyright. If the client wants ownership of the work he will pay much more for that. This is speaking of established, professional illustrators, of course.
There are certainly photographers, illustrators, artists, what-have-you producing work and distributing it outright to the purchaser. This can even have advantages in terms of managing workflow, especially in the digital age when "perfected" images can be delivered in printable form, unlike images-from-film, which can be easily ruined by lackluster darkroom work. Real estate photographers, for example, routinely work for a price-per-listing that includes delivery of a set of prints and the digital file to the listing Realtor. This serves to streamline the photographer's workflow to the point that he does not need to hire help to keep up with "orders". We called stuff like this an in-and-out job and we had a particular pricing structure for it.
Originally posted by "bear_music":
The way most professional photographers price out their work is based on the assumption of future sales of the work. |
Do you have the means to offer such service? I think very few photographers maintain in reproducible quality all the originals for the hirer to re-purchase if so desired. If in deed they paid you to take such shots and you are the exclusive seller, then you might be obligated to provide such prints on request and if you don't have a clause specifying the term that you will maintain originals for reproduction you could find yourself obligated.
I definitely had the means to offer such a service, and I was meticulous about this responsibility. I had staff whose primary job was studio print fulfillment; they would make the B/W prints, order and quality-inspect the color prints, pack and ship/deliver the product.
When I retired I sold my gear and my business to my longtime assistant. My clients all received letters giving them the option of picking up their negatives (free of charge) or leaving them with the new proprietor. As far as I know, none of them took the negatives.
Originally posted by "bear_music":
When we worked as architectural photographers, a continual thorn in our sides was that clients would GIVE our work to magazines to publish, where they shoukld have given our name to the magazine and they could negotiate with us for publication rights. We succesfully recovered monies from every magazine that used our work in this manner; every print had stamped on it, every transparency was sleeved with, a copyright notice.
|
To me, this seems to put forth a question if it's a continual thorn. IMHO
It was a thorn because even though the clients knew the rules (they were in the contract and we discussed them) it was difficult to say "no" an editor of a magazine who was interviewing you who asked to take prints back with him to "refer to when writing his article". The fault was not with the clients, but with the magazine that subsequently published copyrighted images without permission.
In every case we were told that an "error" had been made, and of course they'd be happy to pay us the standard page rate. We chose to believe these were, in fact, errors and civility was maintained. We're talking architectural journals of high quality and repute who publish dozens and dozens, even hundreds, of images monthly. If the pictures accompanied the article when it went to the editor, he might very well have assumed they were cleared for publication. It's a sloppy system altogether, or was. It didn't happen that often. I never believed anyone was TRYING to cheat me. We published a lot of pictures over the years, and stuff happens.
"What is paid for an image should be based on use."
So where does it stop? should I pay you ever time I look at the image? how about every time you listen to a CD? you say no...but it's only a matter of time before CDs are obsolete and you have to pay per listen.
That's ridiculous and you know it. Or are you seriously arguing that an image used by a local sporting good store in its weekly ad in the "Clear Lakes Bugle" should be sold for the same price to Nike for an international print ad campaign?
"And the disruption of this established order is the beef professional photographers have against royalty-free stock sites. "
An order that's only been establish for a few decades. Beforehand, it was not uncommon for the photographer to develop his own film, then later with development houses it was advantageous because the photographer developed so much film he got a discount. Now, that the technology has made the means to do such affordably new issues arise. People realize the costs and values have changed. Photographers do not.
What right to beef does any professional photographer have with royalty-free stock sites. (Assuming they're using their own photos or those submitted voluntarily.)
Personally, I don't think they should. Things are changing, things always change, adapt and move on. I was just pointing out that this was how some people felt, this was what was being threatened.
"I am very much afraid that 'nuff said.... would not hold a great deal of weight in any court of law. The law is truly not interested in who broke the law, but rather in the fact that they did."
And as I've pointed out, there is question as to whether she did or not. And much depends on which particular law you look at. |
No, there's NO question that she made unauthorized copies of copyrighted images. I'll take your word for it that there may be other laws that would take precedence, if for example she'd been specifically TOLD she could do what she wanted with the images when in fact the contract said otherwise. In fact, as far as we know it may BE the case that the photographer told her she was free to do as she liked. There may BE no contract explainign the vested copyright of the photographer. We only have John's strong suspicions that this is not the case, and until he hears from the other photographer, if he ever does, we'll never know.
So this is all hypothetical in that sense; IF she did it... etc etc... Nobody's bashing little old ladies here.
But all this sidesteps the point, which is that this IS how most professional photographers work and this IS an important issue and the laws DO support the photographer here, assuming he has not signed away his rights.
Robt. (the long-winded) |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 09:20:40 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I have come to my personal resolution on this issue and I will deal with it tomorrow. |
I would be interested in your resolution if you wouldn't mind sharing. Are you going to confront your boss? |
Bump...John, would you mind sharing with us the action you took? If not, that's fine too.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 12:34:55 AM · #35 |
TheSaj,
Why in goodness' name are you debating about the cost of materials when it's obviously the name and skill that clients are paying for?
What really differentiates a $70 pair of DKNY jeans from a $15 pair of generic blue jeans? It's the name and *slight* increase in quality, not the cotton.
Picasso could sign his name on a napkin and sell it for piles of cash. Because he was *Picasso*.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:02:23 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
hypocrite - n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold |
There are more hypocrites here than just your boss. A hypocrite is also someone who acts differently than what they preach. It appears that job retention was temporarily more important than stating to your boss your disagreement with his business decision. It may have been uncomfortable and possibly even employment ending, however it was your decision to not speak up - either then or since.
Either you should confess your sin to your god of conscience and seek forgivness, paying whatever pennence is imposed and proceed with the rest of your life commited to avoiding this same choice (thereby remaining silent and yet forgiven, vowing to never repeat the same mistake) OR you can quit your employment, notify the photographers violated and notify the customer of your actions. This principled position will leave you no less miserable, however you can claim an attempt at rectitude.
The bottom line is that a mistake was made by several people, including you. Adults make many decisions in a lifetime, and some of them are wrong. Ask forgiveness from your God, repent, and move on. That is what adults do. The sins performed by mankind are much worse than a photo copied and framed. But each of us has our line in the sand.
Flash |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:05:46 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
hypocrite - n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold |
There are more hypocrites here than just your boss. A hypocrite is also someone who acts differently than what they preach. It appears that job retention was temporarily more important than stating to your boss your disagreement with his business decision. It may have been uncomfortable and possibly even employment ending, however it was your decision to not speak up - either then or since.
Either you should confess your sin to your god of conscience and seek forgivness, paying whatever pennence is imposed and proceed with the rest of your life commited to avoiding this same choice (thereby remaining silent and yet forgiven, vowing to never repeat the same mistake) OR you can quit your employment, notify the photographers violated and notify the customer of your actions. This principled position will leave you no less miserable, however you can claim an attempt at rectitude.
The bottom line is that a mistake was made by several people, including you. Adults make many decisions in a lifetime, and some of them are wrong. Ask forgiveness from your God, repent, and move on. That is what adults do. The sins performed by mankind are much worse than a photo copied and framed. But each of us has our line in the sand.
Flash |
Setzler, in his original post, called this foul on himself: "Now, I'm just as guilty as he is for not saying or doing anything about it."
R. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:06:58 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The bottom line is that a mistake was made by several people, including you. |
I don't think he missed that part.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Now, I'm just as guilty as he is for not saying or doing anything about it. |
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:14:47 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Setzler, in his original post, called this foul on himself: "Now, I'm just as guilty as he is for not saying or doing anything about it."
R. |
Recognition is the first step in rectifying a misdeed. The next step is doing something. I believe there are 2 options. 1 - seek forgiveness from whatever entity he holds above him or 2 - quit and notify the parties involved. The deed is done, now it is simply a matter of what to do about it. I say, repent and move on. There are much bigger sins in this world than this one. Just be more vocal next time. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:21:13 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Setzler, in his original post, called this foul on himself: "Now, I'm just as guilty as he is for not saying or doing anything about it."
R. |
Recognition is the first step in rectifying a misdeed. The next step is doing something. I believe there are 2 options. 1 - seek forgiveness from whatever entity he holds above him or 2 - quit and notify the parties involved. The deed is done, now it is simply a matter of what to do about it. I say, repent and move on. There are much bigger sins in this world than this one. Just be more vocal next time. |
That's easy to say from the outside. As far as option 1, I think it's safe to assume that he's handling it in his own way. But quitting his job in protest? A noble ideal, to be sure, but not a practical reality. Would you be able to quit yours in the same situation? The deed it done, and I agree that moving on is all that can be done. But I don't think that becoming unemployed is a requirement.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:25:20 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Setzler, in his original post, called this foul on himself: "Now, I'm just as guilty as he is for not saying or doing anything about it."
R. |
Recognition is the first step in rectifying a misdeed. The next step is doing something. I believe there are 2 options. 1 - seek forgiveness from whatever entity he holds above him or 2 - quit and notify the parties involved. The deed is done, now it is simply a matter of what to do about it. I say, repent and move on. There are much bigger sins in this world than this one. Just be more vocal next time. |
We are all hypocrites. Some of us are just "rationally hypocritical", meaning we find a way of justifying it that we can live with. Setzler is to be commended for NOT doing that. In his original post he TOLD us that his inaction will weigh heavily upon him.
R |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:30:56 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
That's easy to say from the outside. As far as option 1, I think it's safe to assume that he's handling it in his own way. But quitting his job in protest? A noble ideal, to be sure, but not a practical reality. Would you be able to quit yours in the same situation? The deed it done, and I agree that moving on is all that can be done. But I don't think that becoming unemployed is a requirement. |
You forgot to read the word "or". These are not conjuntive options, rather either/or options. If option 1 is not acceptable THEN option 2 is the only alternative, as I see it. I have many sins that I have committed. Some I have even sought forgiveness for and repented. Regardless, I still have my line in the sand and my principles are what they are. Sometimes they get compromised. It is just the way it is. I don't like it, I try to avoid it, I attempt to stay above the fray and principled in my stands, but once in a while I make a mistake. When that happens, I must then decide a course of action. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:36:40 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In his original post he TOLD us that his inaction will weigh heavily upon him.
R |
No argument here on his candor. But he was receiving advice to take various kinds of notification actions of which would be ONE option (and would result in his job loss, in my opinion). He has another option, which is to give it over to his God. That in my opinion is the wiser course, in this particular event. My rational is that many events in ones life will cause one to question their actions. Learn from it and move on. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:41:24 PM · #44 |
"It doesn't really matter to me that you don't understand the law and how it works."
What I am saying, is a mis-portrayal, by law might constitute and invalidation of said contract. Second, the fact that it was a work for hire may mean that she is the legal owner unless specified in said contract.
"There is a law and it is current and it hasn't been changed in many years."
I too am speaking of current laws...don't like it, go right your Congressmen.
"Work for hire is a special term used in the United States Copyright Act. Normally, when a person or group creates a copyrightable work, whether a song or a computer program or a sculpture, the person or persons creating the work have a copyright in the work. Thus, the creators can exploit the work and receive money for their creative energies.
A work for hire is when a person creates a copyrightable work but does not own it. How can this be? The Copyright Act allows for the copyright to go not to the creator but to the person who hired the creator to make the work. The law treats the creator as if he did not even participate. The employer owns the copyright and it is as if they created the work themselves without any help from the actual creator."
//www.music-law.com/workforhire.html
Lastly, unless you have a copy of said contract, you do not know where retention lies.
"Why in goodness' name are you debating about the cost of materials when it's obviously the name and skill that clients are paying for?"
Because, there are certain laws that sometimes govern how you can bill for materials. For instance, if I am a plumber and charge $50/hr and then bill you for the materials as well. And I spend $100 on the materials and 10 hours installing. A total of $600. I can't charge you $1000 and give you a bill break down of $500 for labor & $500 for parts.
This is the question, did Mrs. Old Lady pay for a print or hire a photographer to take a picture of her? Or both? If she a) hired the photographer to take a picture of her for her, this may constitute a work-for-hire case. At least enough so that such a case would require judiciary determination. b) if she bought a print the print is hers but if the prior benefit all went to the photographer and the photographer retains all ownership then the photographer was the beneficiary not the woman, and therefore should not be charged, except for the print that was taken.
Essentially, what I am saying (and yes it is common practice but may or may not be legal or carry the scope many photographers believe it to hold) is that the photographer in this case is double-billing for the same service. He charged her for the taking and processing of the photo. Then re-added that fee into the printing of the photo. So ethically/morally I think it is flat out wrong.
Legally, there is question as to whether it might be a work for hire or not.
"What really differentiates a $70 pair of DKNY jeans from a $15 pair of generic blue jeans? It's the name and *slight* increase in quality, not the cotton.
Picasso could sign his name on a napkin and sell it for piles of cash. Because he was *Picasso*. "
Exactly, so when you have already "charged" for the name. And then re-add the name charge to the materials cost. You're misleading.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 02:44:16 PM · #45 |
Let me put it simply: as a programmer...
If someone pays me to make them a website, who owns it? me or them?
If you pay me to make you a website who own's the rights to the website? you or me?
Which way do you think the courts will decide?
All this stupidity of saying "it's the law stupid"...guess what, there are so many laws they overlap, they conflict, they get judiciously applied on a case by case basis. To deny such is more idiot than saying I'm denying it. I am just point out questionable circumstances that could make a determination in this case were it to go to court.
- Saj |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 03:29:33 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Let me put it simply: as a programmer...
If someone pays me to make them a website, who owns it? me or them?
If you pay me to make you a website who own's the rights to the website? you or me?
Which way do you think the courts will decide?
All this stupidity of saying "it's the law stupid"...guess what, there are so many laws they overlap, they conflict, they get judiciously applied on a case by case basis. To deny such is more idiot than saying I'm denying it. I am just point out questionable circumstances that could make a determination in this case were it to go to court.
- Saj |
If you pay me to design you a website, you do NOT own the intellectual property rights to the code I have created. You cannot, for example, take this code and market it as a website template.
R. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 03:40:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Work for hire is a special term used in the United States Copyright Act. Normally, when a person or group creates a copyrightable work, whether a song or a computer program or a sculpture, the person or persons creating the work have a copyright in the work. Thus, the creators can exploit the work and receive money for their creative energies.
A work for hire is when a person creates a copyrightable work but does not own it. How can this be? The Copyright Act allows for the copyright to go not to the creator but to the person who hired the creator to make the work. The law treats the creator as if he did not even participate. The employer owns the copyright and it is as if they created the work themselves without any help from the actual creator."
//www.music-law.com/workforhire.html
.....
This is the question, did Mrs. Old Lady pay for a print or hire a photographer to take a picture of her? Or both? If she a) hired the photographer to take a picture of her for her, this may constitute a work-for-hire case. At least enough so that such a case would require judiciary determination. b) if she bought a print the print is hers but if the prior benefit all went to the photographer and the photographer retains all ownership then the photographer was the beneficiary not the woman, and therefore should not be charged, except for the print that was taken.
Essentially, what I am saying (and yes it is common practice but may or may not be legal or carry the scope many photographers believe it to hold) is that the photographer in this case is double-billing for the same service. He charged her for the taking and processing of the photo. Then re-added that fee into the printing of the photo. So ethically/morally I think it is flat out wrong.
Legally, there is question as to whether it might be a work for hire or not. |
You left out the most important part of the "work for hire" clause:
"A work for hire contract is something you should try to avoid. Fortunately, there are specific criteria needed to create a work for hire. A copyrightable work will be considered a work for hire if you are an employee and create the work in the course of your employment. For example, people who create computer programs for IBM are making works for hire. IBM will own the copyright to the final program, not the programmer. If you are not a regular employee, there must be a written contract specifically stating it is a work for hire contract. This is what musicians will run into the most. If you see a contract that has the words "work for hire" in them, your antennas should immediately go up. Be careful with these type of arrangements. You may not have any rights in whatever you create."
If you are not an employee of a company, nothing you create is considered a "work for hire" unless a contract exists specifically stating that this is the case. Period. There's no debate on this, legally. There is some debate on whether certain types of work created by employees may NOT be considered "work for hire" but that's irrelevant here.
What you have said about the arrangment between photographer and client is borderline silly IMO. A photographer contracts with a client to provide a service and a product both. The shooting fee covers the service, the per-print charge covers the product. If the photographer tried to bill the client for a new shooting fee each time he delivered a print, THAT would be "ethically and morally wrong".
R. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 03:44:11 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you pay me to design you a website, you do NOT own the intellectual property rights to the code I have created. You cannot, for example, take this code and market it as a website template. |
But the website as composed. Can I modify? Alter it...for my own use make any changes that I need to it?
It's all gray. If it wasn't...we wouldn't have the !@#$% court system we do.
*shrug*
But I get annoyed as hell seeing "woe is me, poor old lady made a copy....this damn immoral old woman" copyright crap all the time.
All this copyright law is in constant flux and change. And it is so contradicting it's not even funny. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 03:45:59 PM · #49 |
Saj, you need to read and understand what it means to be "work for hire", you obviously are misunderstanding the definition & keep spouting off inaccuracies about it.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 03:55:51 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
But the website as composed. Can I modify? Alter it...for my own use make any changes that I need to it?
It's all gray. If it wasn't...we wouldn't have the !@#$% court system we do.
*shrug*
But I get annoyed as hell seeing "woe is me, poor old lady made a copy....this damn immoral old woman" copyright crap all the time.
All this copyright law is in constant flux and change. And it is so contradicting it's not even funny. |
Of course you can modify the website; you OWN the website. You can throw out ALL the code if you want, I don't care after you paid me. And the "old lady" in question can toss the print she bought from me, or draw moustaches on it, she OWNS the print.
What you, and she, DON'T own is the intellectual property involved. It's not yours to sell, it's not yours to reproduce and disseminate. There's no gray area in that. There ARE gray areas in the copyright laws, but this isn't one of them.
And NOBODY but you as even come close to implying that she's a "damn immoral old woman"; ALL Setzler had to say was that he saw images he PRESUMED (he hasn't seen the contract) to be illegally duplicated. Almost certainly, the lady in question did it without being aware it was not proper. Very likely, had someone pointed out to her she did not have this right she would have ceased and desisted. And thus the photographer's rights would have been protected.
This thread wasn't/isn't about whether the lady is right or wrong, nor is it about whether the lAWS are right or wrong. Setzler posted the thread because he's concerned that his BOSS, and by extension himself, ignored what he knew to be wrong because it "wasn't his business".
Robt. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 01:59:59 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 01:59:59 PM EDT.
|
