Lon Stowell wrote in news:4fswb.221679$9E1.1213251@attbi_s52:
I wonder what would have happened, if the original photographer had been found. If there would be no more negative available, the photographer might have been used the same type of copying machine for the photo. ... toggle some switch or simply put some professional paper into the machine and go on...
In the UK, there was one extension -- the Beatrix Potter childrens books. She left all the rights to them to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children. When the copyright expired, the government extended the copyright so that the hospital would continue to benefit. I think it required an act of Parliament.
-- Andrew Gabriel
the law
owner's
75 andI have heard that the limit is the life of Walt Disney (the origianl copyright holder) plus 70 years. Still some time to go.
Mickey Mouse (the character image) is also a registered trademark. That may present some complications.
In article , Andrew Gabriel wrote: ...
...
Close but no cigar. It's J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan."
Craig
employment,
That's also not true. If you are not employed to write software, the rights doesn't go to your employer.
Cheers Gerard
Approximately 11/24/03 11:53, Eric Sosman uttered for posterity:
Ahh, an early IBM system I see....
-- Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
In article , Spehro Pefhany writes
Which law? Specify law/jurisdiction as this is an international NG. You could be talking about a foreign law..
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org
... snip ...
Hah - Some, if not most, of the software I have created for a paycheck has been a work of art and a thing of beauty. The same applies to hardware. I don't remember assigning copyright anywhere. In many cases they were expressions of well known algorithms, and that expression was so round, so firm, so fully packed (a phrase probably better known to a.f.c readers) as to be a joy forever. I do remember basking in self-admiration over the code or schematics etc.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
USE worldnet address!
In article , Lon Stowell writes
There are some films, lenses and cameras that are not available to consumers.... but these are not available to most professionals either.
You will probably find the paper is watermarked "Kodak Professional" and the scanner has SW that picks this up. A pretty course way of screening things and has been pointed out previously. Many amateurs could use this paper.
I suppose they argument would be that the best way to do prints is with the negatives. If you don't have the negatives you should go back to the photographer... A pro would charge so the only reason you want to copy a "professional" paper print is to get out of paying or side stepping copyright. You will probably find that it is some lawyer for the shop worried about the shop being sued for piracy by photographers.
Imagine a record shop that let you take in CD's to copy on their CD machine.
This probably the logic they used.
Most photographic development places can do prints from prints though they will probably ask you to sign something about copyright ownership of the print.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org
"Professional" film is available in 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10, etc. Any good photo store that has professional or student customers will have it... but not Wal-Mart, nor Ritz Camera, nor the drugstore, nor any other consumer-oriented store. Almost all medium and large format films will be professional but there are exceptions: Kodak Gold used to come in 120, and Verichrome Pan (strangely enough, not color!) was a favorite medium-format black and white film of mine in 120 that was definitely consumer-oriented. Those kind-of date from the days where medium format films were used in consumer cameras, though.
But Pro's do use 35mm for portraiture, etc.
All that said, having followed the URL's in the thread the identifying characteristic was almost certainly a watermark-type (possible a pre-flashed pattern) key on the professional paper. It'd probably be visible if you knew exactly what to look for.
Tim.
[...]
I would, except in this case, they were right. But the studio should still place a mark on their work, IMO, for their benefit.
Easy fix, scan in the photos yourself, re-compress them into jpgs, take the disk down to the picture machine, then print.
The recomression of the jpgs will get rid of the watermark.
-M
What about a CD of you singing along to yourself playing your own guitar in your own lounge room which was recorded by a professional who you had paid to make the recording?
The whole thing sounds utterly iniquitous to me. It's your wedding and you paid for the pics. I would ignore it. Bad laws should not be obeyed.
Mike Harding
last change to "copyright" in Germany was this year in September: (to conform with Europe which in turn cited conformity with USA as one factor ;-))
I think the following did not change: (some other stuff did change - protection for "copy protection" similar to DMCA? and further changes seem to be planned)
70 years after death is default AFAIK pictures/movies?/music: 50 years after first publication?References (in german) the changes:
PS: i am not a lawyer...
PPS: big media company in the USA to a senator: "hey in europe they have 500years copyright...." big media company in the EU to a parlamentarian "hey in the USA they have 500years copyright...." ;-) USA+EU to poor countries: "accept 1000 years of copyright/patents/... on everything and we will mercifully give you some medicines..."
If you had agreed beforehand that the recording engineer owned the copyright, then he would own the copyright.
If you wanted the copyrights and negatives, you should have paid for that up front. I think it's utterly iniquitous that other people have Porsche Boxters and I don't. That doesn't give me the right to take one.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... the HIGHWAY
at is made out of LIME
visi.com JELLO and my HONDA is a
barbequeuedOYSTER! Yum!
And why ever would you agree to that? It's a ridiculous scenario.
You did. Given that the photographer does not know if clients will order further copies he must cover his _full_ costs from the original contract. You're not stealing anything, this isn't like making a copy of a Beatles CD. Don't confuse the law with right and wrong.
If I pay someone to paint a portrait of me I expect to receive the original and not a copy, if I want to copy said portrait I expect to be able to do so without further fees, why is a photograph any different - except that is what photographers have hidden in the small print and have managed to get away with but it doesn't make it right - just legal.
But you didn't pay for one. And equally it doesn't give Porsche the moral right to withhold all spares and service information and to prevent anyone else from performing any maintenance on the car.
Mike Harding
Because I didn't want to pay extra for the copyrights and negatives? For Pete's sake, _read_ the contract when you hire a photographer. If you want to buy the copyrights and negatives, they'll sell them to you. You will have to pay for them, since you're not hiring the guy as an employee who's creating a work for hire.
Why so? It's was the deal that was agreed to beforehand.
No you didn't. It says so quite plainly when you sign the agreement.
Just because you say so?
You agreed beforehand that the photographer got to keep the negaties and the copyrights. If you welch on the deal, you're doing something wrong whether or not it's illegal.
If that's what you and the painter agreed upon, that's fine. If you agreed that the painter retains the copyright, then that's fine too.
What you "expect" isn't legally binding on others -- despite your wishes that it be so.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yes, but will I
at see the EASTER BUNNY in
visi.com skintight leather at an
IRON MAIDEN concert?
The GIMP won't. Adobe Photoshop has some degree of direct integration with Digimark, so it's quite possible that it might refuse.
-- Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/ "But Marge! I've never felt so accepted in my life. These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
The fact that a lot of people here who are involved in creating IP are not aware that they don't own the photos is an indication that there's something wrong... probably the photographers would like to have it both ways when they should be more up front about who owns what at the end of the day. Maybe some of them will need to change their business model to charge more for the photography and unbundle the prints.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
-- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
According to the posts so far on this thread no written agreement is necessary with the photographer, those posts (and this is my understanding too) say the copyright laws automatically assign the copyright to the photographer. Given the other examples I have mentioned and the fact that the photographer has already been paid in full for his work then this is plain bad law. There is a lot of it about.
Mike Harding
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.