So called "copyright" pictures

No, I mean my mate from next door with his cassette recorder who I've paid a few bob to record me singing and playing my masterpiece.

Others have suggested this situation may not apply to sound recordings - I cannot say, with confidence, if it does or not.

No there isn't. There is more to "good" photography sure but I don't believe copyright differentiates between quality and crap.

For which he has been paid.

So, if I ask my mythical mate from next door; if I lend him my camera, buy the film, pay for the developing and printing and pay him $100 for his trouble will he come along for an hour and take some pics. of my wedding, get them developed at the 1 hour shop and bring them to the reception he _won't_ hold the copyright to them but I will?

Mike Harding

Reply to
Mike Harding
Loading thread data ...

Grant> Sure. If you read the contract, it assigns copyright to the Grant> employer.

Grant> If you hire a photographer and pay him strictly by the hour, Grant> and provide the equipment and materials, then the copyright Grant> probably belongs to you.

That's exactly INCORRECT.

Reply to
Christopher C. Stacy

(snip)

(snip)

KODAK makes a paper that says on the back "Professional Images are Copyright Protected." Now, probably anyone can buy that paper, but it tends to be sold to ones selling copyrighted pictures.

This same paper may or may not have a feature that is visible from the front. It is not glossy, and seems to have a very fine pattern of bumps. It could be just that pattern that is detected by the printing device.

-- glen

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

No. Your friend holds the copyright. No matter who pays him for whatever, he and only he is the creator of the photograph and therefore he has the copyrights.

Meindert

Reply to
Meindert Sprang

This can't be it. Our photographer (who assigned copyright to us, remember) supplied proofs on this type of paper. We scanned one of them for thank-you cards at an all-in-one print booth in Wal-Mart and there were no problems.

Reply to
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards

Maybe the machine wasn't (yet?) set up to detect the microdot pattern pre-exposed in the emulsion. Or maybe it just didn't do it right in that case.

While looking at this on the net, I ran across a case of visible dots showing up in the image from a computer scanner, from attempting to scan in this kind of paper.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

these

Yes, there is something special that they do. That's why you hired him.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Reply to
jmfbahciv

[...]

IANAL, and I'm getting my info from the US copyright law web site, but AIUI, it depends on the nature of the financial relationship. If you engage him under "work for hire," your "few bob" pay for his labor and equipment rental, but you retain the copyright. OTOH, if he is a "record producer," he may have a valid claim to at least a portion of the copyright. In the absence of a contract, you'd probably have to take it to court (small claims court? ;-), but you'd probably wind up sharing.

You're right, it doesn't. It can't. It shouldn't. If the pictures are crap, who wants a copy anyway?

Depends on the contract (if any). The fee for attending the wedding might compensate for opportunity costs (The photog might miss that perfect shot of the grand canyon at sunset while he was busy at your affair). Or there may be no such fee, just an agreement that a minimum number of prints will be purchased.

In the absence of a contract, the courts would probably have to decide. And to get that far, your friend would have to claim you violated copyright and take you there. Not very friendly...

But if it's your camera and film, and you pay for the processing, I suspect the relationship will be seen as work for hire, and you'll hold the copyrights.

Regards,

-=Dave

--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Reply to
Dave Hansen

Dave> IANAL, and I'm getting my info from the US copyright law web site, but Dave> AIUI, it depends on the nature of the financial relationship. If you Dave> engage him under "work for hire," your "few bob" pay for his labor and Dave> equipment rental, but you retain the copyright.

It's not a work for hire unless there's a contract that says it was, and that particular type of contract is required to be in writing.

Reply to
Christopher C. Stacy

I suspect you're right. This seems analogous to the software contracting world where there are certain tests which distinguish a contractor from an employee. If I perform work for a client, on his premises, using only his resources, when he tells me to do it, the IRS is likely to challenge my claim to be an independent contractor, and the courts could likewise challenge my ownership of work product.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Alan Balmer

Approximately 11/26/03 06:57, Alan Balmer uttered for posterity:

Thought a significant portion of that test was whether or not you did those items for a single client or multiple ones not part of the same business.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

True, but that didn't seem to apply to the "neighbor holding the mike" scenario. The test is actually quite elaborate, involving what's known as the "twenty questions" , and no part of it is absolute. The answers to the twenty questions are considered as a whole, and the IRS makes a judgment. Sometimes that judgement is questioned by both contractors and tax court judges.

So, you can easily be a contractor even if you never work for more than one client at a time. Offering your services to multiple clients (easily accomplished by an occasional newspaper ad) is probably more important.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Alan Balmer

and

Please remember that the time period _starts_ from the death of the creator, not from the event of creation. Walt Disney died considerably less than 70 years ago.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                          bhk@dsl.co.uk
    "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would.  Yet we are
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) writes: [snip]

Aha! Suspicions confirmed. It's the bride's triumphal ceremony and the groom is a pro forma adjunct.

Reply to
Everett M. Greene

That's why it's verboten to congratulate the bride and thus draw attention to what's really happening.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

I'm glad somebody else has heard of that rule. Everytime I say something about how you're not supposed to congratulate the bride, everybody looks at me like I'm from Mars.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Quick, sing me the
                                  at               BUDAPEST NATIONAL ANTHEM!!
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Lon Stowell wrote in news:4fswb.221679$9E1.1213251@attbi_s52:

When the photographer who took my wedding pictures went out of business, he offered to ship us the negatives for a very small fee, basically to cover the shipping costs, we did take him up on that. He did hold the copyright to the pictures prior to that.

--
Richard
Reply to
Richard

No - it wasn't made up.

--
 _
Kevin D. Quitt              91387-4454            Kevin@Quitt.net
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Kevin D. Quitt

I was taught this as well. The idea was that if you congratulated the bride the words 'for finally managing to hook a man' were hanging around, unsaid.

Alternatively, not congratulating the bride perpetuates the idea that sheer exhaustion has forced her to stop beating them off with a shitty stick.

Phil

Reply to
Phil

In that case, proper courtesy would seem to be to offer a moment of silence for the bride.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

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.