So called "copyright" pictures - Page 8

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sorry, I just don't see how ownership is being "taken" from
somebody and "given" to somebody else by the law.

IANAL, but my uderstanding is that the copyright for a work
belongs, by default, to the person who created it. In copyright
law, I believe the "creator" is the person who fixed "it" in a
medium. That person may sell/assign the copyright to somebody
else for money.  When a regular employee is acting as an agent
of his employer, that employer is considered the "person" who
created the work. For independant contractors, the contract
must explicitly transfer ownership of the copyright if that is
desired.

I'm afraid I don't see what is so wrong and inequitable about
that.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I'm also pre-POURED
                                  at               pre-MEDITATED and
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 copyright law I believe you are correct, but:
Is the creator of the art (in my example) the person who
wrote the words, wrote the music, sang the words and
played the music (without any form of assistance, payment
or contract from another) and then paid someone else (a
handsome sum) to record him doing that or is it the man
with the tape recorder?

I'm afraid I cannot but see that, morally, the artistic creator
is the musician - copyright law says otherwise - that is why
I believe it to be wrong and bad law.

Mike Harding


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Somebody cited a case in another posting that the answer in
that case law says for recordings, both the singer and the
recorder.  The copyright for the song itself is serparate and
distinct from the the copyright for the recording of the song.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Creating a good recording takes a lot more than being able to
play and sing.  You may place higher value on the vocal and
instrumental skills than on the recording/producing skills,
others may not.  I've heard recording that I regarded mainly as
the creation of the performer and others that I regarded mainly
as the creation of the producer/engineer. Apparently, case law
says both count -- so next time you're making a record, make
sure the copyright stuff is in writing.  

Nobody will ever want to listen to (let alone record) me
singing or playing...

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Now I'm telling MISS
                                  at               PIGGY about MONEY MARKET
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:23:35 +1100, Mike Harding

[...]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes.


Yes.


Yes.


Yes.


If you mean the record "producer," then yes.  If you mean the guy
running the sound board, then not necessarily.  Consider "bootleg"
taping of live concerts.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.  Copyright law says the "author" of the work owns the copyright.
Specifically in the instance of sound recordings, the "performer(s) or
record producer, or both."

Note this is different from the musical composition copyright:
"Copyright in a musical work includes the right to make and distribute
the first sound recording. Although others are permitted to make
subsequent sound recordings, they must compensate the copyright owner
of the musical work under the compulsory licensing provision of the
law (title 17, United States Code, Section 115)."

To bring it back to the photographs, the "author" of the work is the
photographer, regardless of their subject (wedding, news event, the
grand canyon).  The wedding might belong to the bride, but the image
belongs to the one who "fixed" it.  There's more to photography than
releasing the shutter: posing, composing, cropping, retouching, etc.
The wedding party and guests aren't there to create the image.  The
photographer is.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only because you are misinformed.  See www.copyright.gov for more
(USA-specific) info.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:17:20 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

For which he has been paid.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



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

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



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

Unless otherwise agreed, that is.
Basically in most countries of the world, the *copyright* as such cannot
be transferred -- but *all* other rights connected to it can be, and it
is a matter of agreement which rights are transferred to whom...

Helmut


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:45 +1100, Mike Harding

Quoted text here. Click to load it
[...]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

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

 Dave> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:45 +1100, Mike Harding

 >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:17:20 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
 >> wrote:
 >>
 Dave> [...]
 >>>
 >>> If you mean the record "producer," then yes.  If you mean the guy
 >>> running the sound board, then not necessarily.  Consider "bootleg"
 >>> taping of live concerts.
 >>
 >> 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.

 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.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:02 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Approximately 11/26/03 06:57, Alan Balmer uttered for posterity:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  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.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:03:51 GMT, Lon Stowell

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
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

Not only that, but the state labor board (in the US, certainly in
CT) will consider the employer in violation if he hasn't
contributed to unemployment insurance, workmans comp, and take out
witholding tax.  You have no reason to submit any estimated
taxes.  If the work ends, you can collect unemployment.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) writes:
[snip]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:07:58 PST, the renowned snipped-for-privacy@iwvisp.com

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.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

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!!
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 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


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Approximately 11/26/03 14:27, Phil uttered for posterity:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

  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.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Congratulations are due upon engagement. At the wedding say to the
bride, congratulate the bride with "it's a beautiful wedding!'   - RM


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

They /bride/!?!  It's the groom who needs the condolences!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Think they can make 3-13?  NFL AFC West:  KC, Denver, and
the losers.

Site Timeline