So called "copyright" pictures

I'm talking about software, as the laws are similar, I'd expect we'd (in c.a.e.) be more knowledgable than the average bear.

Of course most people probably don't think in terms of copyright law and contract law and business arrangements when they just want a photo made.

They actually *volunteer* the information (use their precious time to educate the consumer, possibly to their detriment)? I think not. Of course they would CTA in the boilerplate.

Some could get a LOT more (especially good product photographers, who are worth their weight in gold), but IME most of them deservedly make considerably less than that, all told. There are not that many Yousuf Karshs out there. Also, it's not like I'm likely going to come back 5 years later for a reprint of a portrait, and they have to store the negatives like I might. If one won't do a work for hire, another will, just like any other business involving a skilled professional. The copy prevention techniques may help boost consumer awareness and hasten the unbundling of the services, probably to the eventual benefit of all.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Given the timeframe, it's probably either pretty low-tech (optical) or a scanner bug.

Try transparency film on both sides of the print. If all else fails, try a professional photographic supplies and services store: they may be able to either direct you to the photographer or successor, or know enough about the situation to be able to get copies made for you, less expensively than using a pro.

But didn't the Beatles already have covered their full costs _yet_?

John Lennon hasn't.

Mike Harding

My contract said that the rights of all intellectual creations, such as computer software, text etc, done as a part of my employment, were the property of my employer. What I did in my own time, however, was mine

- of course if I made use of anything I had done for my employer that, would be a copyright violation. Although I wasn't employed to write software if my employer had asked my to, and I had done so, the copy- right would have been theirs.

They did send me on a software course*, but it was mostly so I could understand what it was possible to do - we had programmers to actually write the stuff.

• NCC Filetab - one of the first, and IMHO one of the best, systems for writing data handling programs.

The copyright of the recording would belong to whoever made the recording not the performer. A situation that has been used since the gramophone/ phonograph was invented to cheat performing artists of their just reward. There are many performers who were paid only a few dollars to make records that sold millions and made record companies huge profits. These days any musician with his brain in gear will sort out the copyright issues before playng a note!

More generally speaking (and slightly simplified):

Creative work that is subject to copyright protection

-- will be the creator's/inventor's own if -- the work was created by himself on his own and -- with his own means and tools and -- in his own time ("own" meaning "owned or paid for by the creator")

-- will be the employer's if -- the creator was hired explicitely for that reason (e.g., software developer as employee), or -- the creator was hired for other work but used time/equipment/resources paid for by the employer(*), or -- such a transfer of copyright was agreed in the employment contract, or -- (USA, but not Europe) a person or company is hired to create a specific work to specifications provided by the employing person or agency (i.e., "work for hire"; most prominent examples: special effects for movies).

To make matters more complicated, many contries distinguish between copyright as such and the rights to a commercial exploitation of the work -- this is why the "work for hire" rule would be impossible in many European countries: The original creator will retain his copyright, just the right to *commercial* exploitation (i.e., for profit) goes to the hiring person/company. This allows the original creator to use the work for any non-profit purpose if he choses so (such as presenting it at festivals or showing it in his own portfolio). Under the U.S. "work for hire" rule, all the nice special effects you did are Warner Bros.'s and you can't even enter them in an award competition (but Warner can if they chose to do so).

Helmut

(*) That situation touches close on the "on-the-job-inventions" issue and has been subject to countless legal disputes...

the

rights

That wasn't the contract DEC had. It had a blanket for everything and paperwork for exceptions. One of the diagnositc guys invented something and wanted to take a patent out. He had to get a waiver from DEC so that he owned the patent. IIRC, his bit had to do with clothes washers and the lawyers deemed that the patent was not competition.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Please, give me his account number at Paradize Bank, I'll wire him the remainder ASAP.

Because you're too poor to pay a professional his full costs upfront and he's working in the hopes that there will be enough record sales to third parties to cover his costs.

The photographer is taking a bet that family and friends will order prints and that's how he covers his costs and makes a profit. It's a pretty good bet that several sets of relatives will order several prints each.

Sorry if the photographer didn't spell that out for the original poster. Our wedding photographer did make that clear. So do the photographers we've taken our child to.

It's not a special deal for photographers. I'm pretty sure that if you pay someone to paint a portrait (in the absence of a separate agreement) the painter holds copyright, not the sitter. You get the original but you don't get to make prints to your heart's content.

Same as when you get a letter. You own the original of the letter, but not the copyright; you could not have the letter duplicated or published without an agreement to that effect.

I suspect copyright doesn't cover manufactured goods like cars.

But if you talk about moral rights, what if you buy a Porsche and take it to Kinko's Car Replication Center and give replica Boxsters to all your friends and relations? I bet Porsche would be pretty upset, and if lots of people did that they couldn't stay in business.

There are lots of things about the current copyright law I'm not happy with, starting with the ridiculously long term... but assigning copyright by default to the artist who creates the work isn't one of them.

-- Patrick

Good point, but copyright law is basically the same in all countries that signed the Berne convention, which is most of the major ones.

You can check at

Doesn't the UK conform to the WIPO requirements? That was the purported reason for the extension in the US.

Unfortunately, your picture, and any eventual copies of it, will probably never copy correctly at any retail scanning machine. However, if you do copy it privately and post it on your web page, a digimarc webcrawler will eventually find it and send a notice to the original photographer. (This is how you can find him.)

If you hire a photographer that won't give you the digital media (or negatives), be sure their talent is worth the pain. Not all of these guys are the next Ansel Adams. I have a friend who bought a nice camera and sent his cousin to a photography workshop in order to photograph his own wedding. Not because they were being cheap, or thought they would get a better result, but because he didn't want to have to find and pay some guy a per-copy fee for his own images.

Not so. The photographer, if he has any experience in his business, or knowledgable advisors, presumably has some notion of the average value of repeat business, and will factor that in.

If I contract to write software for you, there will be several choices on the disposition of the copyright.

1. You get the right to use a copy of the work, and the usual fair use rights regarding backups, etc. I retain all other rights.
2. You get extended rights to the work, such as the right to make derivative works, the right to redistribute the work, etc. on a non-exclusive basis. I can still do whatever I want with it, as well.
3. You get total assignment of the copyright, with exclusive rights to do whatever you like. I can't use the work for another client.
4. Some combination of the above. I wrote many contracts which gave the client exclusive rights to software written specifically for the job, while retaining rights to libraries and other reusable parts of the work.

You pay a different price for each of these scenarios.

He he, I think the movie industry is still paying license fees for using the song "Happy Birthday". I just saw it in a credit this weekend.

Thad

For some reason, I'd thought that was Peter Pan....

Indeed. But it does not prevent you to invent a new happy birthday song and compete for royalties. :-)

They are. That's the reason that "The Wizard of Speed and Time" used a different birthday song (now that's a low budget film: can't pay the royalties on "Happy Birthday"). Actually, that's a movie everybody on a.f.c. should see: this crowd would all love it as much as I do.