So called "copyright" pictures - Page 6

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
snipped-for-privacy@ComcastPeriod.Net> writes
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you had agreed beforehand that the recording engineer owned
the copyright, then he would own the copyright.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And why ever would you agree to that? It's a ridiculous
scenario.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why so?  It's was the deal that was agreed to beforehand.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No you didn't.  It says so quite plainly when you sign the
agreement.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just because you say so?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

But isn't there something in favour of the client like the
photographer MUST keep the negatives and if he isn't available anymore
the rights (at least to make copies) go over to you...

RK

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com (Reinhard Kopka) writes:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only if the contract says so.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If a book goes out of print, fair use is stretched a bit more as far
as being able to photocopy it.  You still can't do anything you want
if the book is out of print, but it gets the user more rights, for
instance, to use photocopying to replace a worn out or damaged copy.
I wonder if that's a special deal just for book users, or if it
extendes to other media as well.

-- Patrick

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 25 Nov 2003 10:30:25 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon

Quoted text here. Click to load it

John Lennon hasn't.

Mike Harding


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Yeah, you and the guy in Nigeria with the oil money he needs to deposit...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 25 Nov 2003 15:29:41 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you missed my point.

Mike Harding


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I saw that movie 20 years ago and have been trying
to find a copy!!!  I was working at a video engineering
company and one of the tape ops was duping it.  I
wanted a copy then, but ethics didn't allow it.

Thanks for the info.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There is a guy named Rombaldi who is selling really, really nicely
done DVDs of the movie.  The copyright situation of that film is really
confused, but its maker -- Mike Jittlov -- claims to be the copyright
holder, and has authorized Rombaldi to make copies.  Actually, Mike
says anybody is welcome to make copies, but not to sell the result for
a profit.  Googling for "Rombaldi" on groups.google.com should turn
him up.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline