So called "copyright" pictures - Page 10

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Mon, 01 Dec 03 11:59:53 GMT

JC> That's not the tradition.  The white gown is supposed to symbolize
JC> to you males that she hasn't been before.

    Blue to symbolise that she has which leads to a quote which I can't
recall the origin of along the lines of "... in that case I'll get married
in white", pause, "with little blue spots".

--
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
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

#define LEGAL_CONTEXT USA

This is a curious case.

Circular 56 of the US LoC has some interesting notes on this
situation.  What is curious is the vagueness of the following snip:

    The author of a sound recording is the
    performer(s) or record producer or both.

So, your assumptions of the alleged moral indefensibility falls short
prima facia.  Furthermore, even if the recording engineer/producer were
to hold copyright on that specific Sound Recording, would not the
Sound Recording be a derivative work of the unpublished performance by
the author of the compisition?  

Finally - the one time I had cause to use a professional recording
facility, the contract had work-for-hire text in it making clear that
copyright was held by the actual performers, and not the hired
recording engineer.

So, copyright law is NOT in this respect morally indefensible, because
it does not in theory or application cause this "clear ownership
transfer" to take place.

--l





Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:09:47 GMT, lawrence@c896388-c.attbi.com

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, I don't think the original performance is copyrightable, so the
recording is not a derivative work. The fixing of the sound in a
tangible media (recording) is copyrightable.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I agree. Also, anyone who pays a sound man $10,000 without
understanding the realities of the transaction isn't going to be rich
for long ;-)

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:54:42 +1100, Mike Harding

Quoted text here. Click to load it
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.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 25 Nov 2003 02:26:24 GMT, the renowned Grant Edwards

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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"
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

Are referring to the people attending the wedding as "involved
in creating IP"?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I guess so.  Too many people are signing things without reading
them.  Too many people enterying business arrangements without
finding out what's going on.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They've always been perfectly up front about it when I've dealt
with them.  Perhaps some aren't.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you ask, I'm sure you could come to an arrangement where you
can find a photographer who will work for an hourly rate and
leve the exposed film with you.  It'll probably be a something
on the order of $150-$200 an hour with a 4 hour minumum.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Yow! Did something
                                  at               bad happen or am I in a
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 25 Nov 2003 03:59:36 GMT, the renowned Grant Edwards

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
--
"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
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:42:20 +1100, Mike Harding
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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!

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr     stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. 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

If you paid him 'to make the recording' and he made the
recording he did what you paid him for.  If you paid him
to supply you with a recording which you could take home
and reproduce as many times as you want then that's what
he has to do.  For the latter, he would doubtless charge
more money.

As with the earlier question, the answer is to read the
contract.  If you have no written contract (and with a
professional wedding-photographer you usually will) then
be very clear on what you want when you ask him to come
and take some pictures.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes.  You paid for the pics.  You did not pay the larger
amount of money you would have been charged to own the
copyright on the pics.  Read the contract.  It will be
perfectly clear from the wording of the contract who owns
what.



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

"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.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

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

Our wedding photographer decided to discard the negatives after a number of
years.  He wanted several thousand dollars for them.


--
 _
Kevin D. Quitt              91387-4454             snipped-for-privacy@Quitt.net
           96.37% of all statistics are made up

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

[snip]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The copyright is the photographer's (I think you are in the UK...)
unless you came to some other arrangement at the time you made the
the contract with him.  The photographer created the work of art -
ie the photograph -  and the copyright belongs to the creator not
the subject of an image.

As for how they knew, I don't know...

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr     stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. 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


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


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:14:07 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, CBFalconer

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Given the timeframe, it's probably either pretty low-tech (optical) or
a scanner bug.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis     Calgary, Alberta, Canada

snipped-for-privacy@CSi.com     (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:18:01 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Brian

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis     Calgary, Alberta, Canada

snipped-for-privacy@CSi.com     (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
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

http://www.digimarc.com

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.




Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it


My sister is a patent attorney at Kodak.  I asked her what was up re:
your photos.  Her reply:

"I asked those in the know.   It is no longer sold, but until last
year, EKC sold a receiver (that is, the actual print paper) for
professional photographers which had imbedded in it yellow dye in a
certain pattern.  This is not visible through the print, but is easily
seen with a colorimeter.  Functionally, that's what a reprint kiosk is
- a colorimeter/copier.  EKC kiosks were programmd to refuse EKC
protected prints.  We stopped selling the stuff because photographers
couldn't get copies of their own prints made, and therefore didn't
like it."

George
==============================================
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET

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

Thanks for the info.  Why don't they simply reprogram their kiosks
to accept those prints?  In fact, I understand they can be
overridden, so it would probably take no more than a memo to the
locations having them.  Killing the paper seems like
self-flagellation.

--
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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Killing the product is a business decision that has few, if any
repercussions.  But allowing the duplication of a professional photo,
when at least *some* photographers use their protected paper, may well
have legal issues.  Even though the system was a commercial failure,
they may be obligated to continue the process of protection.  

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

snipped-for-privacy@XYarius.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline