Copyrights
allison
copyright's home page faq indicating that copyright belongs to the owner
when the artwork is produced and has nothing to do with being registered.
Basically the only limitations are if you are producing work for an
employer.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#wccc
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship,"
including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other
intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and
unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the
owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do
the following:
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed
form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the
property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those
deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
Richard Knoppow
There was a very long thread recently in one of the mailing lists I
belong to about copyright law. It is not so simple as it may seem.
Copyright law has always been rather arcane and obscure and remains so
even after the substantial revisions made in the last couple of
decades (and continuing to be made). The point is that if you have any
serious copyright issues you should consult an attorney who
specializes in intellectual property law. \
For instance, while anything you create is automatically copyrighted
at the time of creation your rights to sue are not the same as if the
work is registered, so the automatic copyright is not complete.
Again, if you have a serious purpose see a real specialist. Law of
any sort never seems to work the way you would think it does.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Lloyd Erlick
>THere was some confusion on this issue. Here are quotes directly from the US
>copyright's home page faq indicating that copyright belongs to the owner
>when the artwork is produced and has nothing to do with being registered.
***
>Basically the only limitations are if you are producing work for an
>employer.
***
mar19/2001 from Lloyd Erlick,
Interestingly, when making commissioned portraits, the portraitist is
deemed to be producing work for an emloyer (at least in
Canada...). Thus the party paying for a portrait owns the intellectual
property. The portraitist owns the piece of film containing the
intellectual property...
I ask my portrait clients to sign a release giving me copyright. It's
very rare for anyone to balk at the request.
Also, a person owns the rights to their own visage. Thus, even if a
subject has not paid for their portrait to be made, they must sign a
release before the portraitist can make commercial use of their
visage. (Editorial use is an exception; news photos of peoples' faces
do not require releases.)
regards,
--le
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick,
357 Richmond Street West,
Toronto M5V 1X3 Canada.
---
voice 416-596-8751
ll...@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick
>The problem for the portrait artist is in the selling a print to the client,
>and then have the client scan the image and produce any number of various sized
>print for all jis freinds, thereby bypassing the photographer, and
>shortchanging him/her on their livelyhood.
>Jim Finkle
>Portrait Place
mar1501 from Lloyd Erlick,
Yes, that has always been a problem, even before scanners. But the
results are nowhere near my real prints, and anyone who will do it
will probably not pay for a print anyway.
The portrait subject owns the rights to his/her visage (therefore get
the subject to sign a release...), but the portraitist owns the rights
to the print (and negatives). Thus scanning or photocopying the print
violates the portraitist's rights; go ahead, hire a lawyer!
Jimfinkle1
>From: ll...@the-wire.com (Lloyd Erlick)
>Date: 3/15/01 12:24 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ab04f52...@news.the-wire.com>
>
>"allison" <ab1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>THere was some confusion on this issue. Here are quotes directly from the US
>>copyright's home page faq indicating that copyright belongs to the owner
>>when the artwork is produced and has nothing to do with being registered.
>
>***
>>Basically the only limitations are if you are producing work for an
>>employer.
>***
>
>
>mar19/2001 from Lloyd Erlick,
>
>Interestingly, when making commissioned portraits, the portraitist is
>deemed to be producing work for an emloyer (at least in
>Canada...). Thus the party paying
The problem for the portrait artist is in the selling a print to the client,
John
(Jimfinkle1) wrote:
>
>The problem for the portrait artist is in the selling a print to the client,
>and then have the client scan the image and produce any number of various sized
>print for all jis freinds, thereby bypassing the photographer, and
>shortchanging him/her on their livelyhood.
>Jim Finkle
>Portrait Place
And the funny part is that photographers have
no one to blame but themselves. They asked for digital.
Now they have it.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer
http://www.photographers-darkroom.com
===============================
Kirk
jo...@photographers-darkroom.com says...
> And the funny part is that photographers have
> no one to blame but themselves. They asked for digital.
> Now they have it.
>
>
Photographers didn't particularly "ask" for digital, but there has
always been an ability to copy a photograph, and since the late 80s,
color photocopying (that is, "Xeroxing") has been cheaper than
ordering reprints.
All there is to do on that point is to be able to provide added value
in an additional print from the negative or digital file over a copy
(digital scan or otherwise).
As Lloyd said, such people weren't going to buy another print anyway.
--
Kirk
Experience is the best teacher...
But her pop quizzes can be mighty tough.
Kirk
> no one to blame but themselves. They asked for digital.
> Now they have it.
>
>
>
With regard to the Internet, there is now an enormous problem with
intellectual property rights. On the surface, the problem appears to
be the ease by which intellectual property can be stolen.
At base, however, is the fact that we have new generations of people
who simply don't believe anyone has a right to his own property, and
that they have a "right" to steal anything they have the power to
steal: "If he didn't want it stolen, he should have had better copy
protection."
There is a recent Burger King TV commercial in the States that
illustrates this perfectly. Three young men are watching television
while eating hamburgers. One young man leaves to get a napkin. The
moment he's gone, the other two eat his food. This is the modern
state of ethics, whether hamburgers, popular music, novels, or
photographs.
People today simply don't believe you have a right to control what you
create: "Information wants to be free."
What is worse, there is a new generation of lawyers that fall right
into this mindset.
Harlan Ellison, a well-known science fiction writer, is leading a
legal fight for intellectual property rights. Read this very
important piece at
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/kick.html
--
Kirk
"Man plans; God laughs." (from Psalm 1)