Re: Photographic rights
Nicko
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't.
No, not at all.
>Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
Yes, that is the case in the scenario you describe.
>
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
"When it's created, it's copyrighted."
And effectively, at least in the US, that means you don't even have to
register the image.
Unless there is written contractual transference of ownership, the
image itself is the intellectual property of the person who created
it.
This is pretty straightforward:
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
--
YOP...
J�rgen Exner
>Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
>in photography?
That very much depends upon the country where the photo was taken resp.
you are living in. Therefore it might help if you would state that
country.
>Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
>friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
>birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
>prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
>posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
>doesn't.
In most jurisdictions it doesn't. However in some jurisdictions some
courts might assume that the act of handing over the negative and all
prints implied that the photographer had the intention of transfering
the copyright, too.
> Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
>transferring his copyright to the model?
In most jurisdictions, yes.
Also you are talking about "model". In some jurisdictions this would
require a model release form, i.e. a confirmation from the model that
you are allowed to take and publish those photos.
jue
Nicko
The subject of a photo becomes a "model" in legal terms, only when he/
she agrees to a contract regarding the rights to the photo.
Otherwise, the person is just the subject of the photo.
nospam
<waybackNO...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
ask a lawyer if you want an accurate answer.
Peabody
>> Also you are talking about "model". In some
>> jurisdictions this would require a model release form,
>> i.e. a confirmation from the model that you are allowed
>> to take and publish those photos.
> The subject of a photo becomes a "model" in legal terms,
> only when he/ she agrees to a contract regarding the
> rights to the photo.
> Otherwise, the person is just the subject of the photo.
Could you explain this a bit more? It's not clear what
rights the subject of a photo has. I know there have been
recent cases where someone's picture was used for
advertising, and they objected to that. But if I just take
someone's picture, does he/she have any rights in the
photograph?
I should have said up front - I'm asking with respect to
U.S. law.
Ofnuts
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
>
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
>
Whatever the law is, by giving the negative the photographer has made it
extremely difficult for him to prove that he has taken the picture,
unless he has kept negatives of shots from the same shooting session, or
an expert is ready to compare scratches on the negative with those of
other negatives taken with the photographer's camera body.
--
Bertrand
MC
news:4a01435d$0$14538$426a...@news.free.fr...
Negatives can be copied.
MC
whisky-dave
> Whatever the law is, by giving the negative
Exactly what century or planet are you living on, what's a 'Negative' ;-)
I thumbed through an old photography book which was printed on some sort of
substance made from dried leaves. It seemed to suggest that this negative
was produced
by exposing it to light and after development you could enlarge this image.
I used a really strong magnifier and I couldn't see any image on my SD card
;-)
But more seriously I've heard that facebook want to own any image you
upload,
although I didn't; take much notice as it's not the sort of place I'd put
images that
might be worth anything financially speaking.
Don Stauffer
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't. Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
>
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
>
We have to let lawyers and judges make a living, right?
Seriously, laws cannot be written to cover EVERY situation. That is
what courts are for. In the above situation, I can see such a case going
to court and letting the judge or jury decide. The best way to avoid
court is to get any agreement in writing. The answer lies with the best
lawywer :-)
Pat
One would think that if it went to court, and the "model" had the
negatives; then the model would argue that it was "work for hire" and
that (s)he was the copyright owner and the OP was nothing other than
the photographer. The copyright does not necessarily belong to the
person who pushed the shutter button.
In such a case, (s)he would have a strong argument and in the end, the
only thing that'll happen is that a bunch of lawyers will make a bunch
of money.
whisky-dave
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:4a01a36e$0$48219$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
> We have to let lawyers and judges make a living, right?
>
> Seriously, laws cannot be written to cover EVERY situation. That is what
> courts are for. In the above situation, I can see such a case going to
> court and letting the judge or jury decide. The best way to avoid court
> is to get any agreement in writing. The answer lies with the best lawywer
> :-)
It's a sad situation though isn;t it, in that being in the right or the
wrong
depends on how good your lawyer is, which is probably linked to how much he
charges.
It seems that basically a laywer is employed to lie on your behalf, the more
you can afford
the better the lie he'll construct.
Pat
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't. Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
>
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
If you took the pictures "for her", so to speak, she owns the
copyright.
If you took the pictures for yourself and was just giving her a print,
then you own the copyright.
If you have no written agreement and she has the negatives, she'll
argue that you did her a favor and took the pictures for her cuz
that's her argument that it is work for hire and she owns the work-
product.
There is a similar situation is architecture. In architecture, you
pay the architect to design the building, not to produce the plans.
Because you are paying for "design", the "design" is the product and
the plans are just a by-product. Therefore the architect owns the
copyright and intellectual property. If you were just paying for the
plans, then you would own them, the copyright, the intellectual
rights, and the work-products.
The similar, and easy to understand, situation in photography would be
a big studio. The studio hires a photographer. The studio owns the
copyright, not the photographer, because it is all work-for-hire.
Finally, as an example, let's say you had an assistant. You set the
camera up on a tripod. You pose the model or client. You move in
close and adjust the hair perfectly. You turn to the photographer and
say "okay" and she hits the shutter and takes the most gorgeous photo
ever taken. Wow. Now, who was the photographer? Who owns the
rights? You, of course. Who pushed the shutter is irrelevant.
But in the end, you should clear it all up by giving some sort of
release/permission to your friend. It's easier to get good pictures
than it is to get good friends. If you don't, you will have neither a
friend nor the pictures.
Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
> "When it's created, it's copyrighted."
> And effectively, at least in the US, that means you don't even have to
> register the image.
This is true, but there are still reasons to register: it's a lot
easier to show the copyright in court, and (I think) you're eligible to
claim statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) only if the work
is registered.
"Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to
register their works because they wish to have the facts of their
copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration.
Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's
fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5
years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court
of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright
Registration" and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments
Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works."
<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#automatic>
--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800
Marvin
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't. Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
>
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
>
http://www.copyright.gov/. In this case, the copyright
belongs to the photographer. You are right, he would have to
sign it over to make it the property of someone else. But
if the model paid to have the photo taken, it would be a
"work for hire" and the model would own the copyright. Many
professional photographers take photos under a contract that
keeps the copyright as the photographers.
Ofnuts
> "Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote in message
> news:4a01435d$0$14538$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>
>> Whatever the law is, by giving the negative
>
> Exactly what century or planet are you living on, what's a 'Negative' ;-)
Ask the OP: "The photographer takes a picture of a
friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
prints." :-)
--
Bertrand
Savageduck
Savageduck
These might also be useful:
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=37
http://photography.lovetoknow.com/Photography_Release_Forms
http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/17/free-photography-release-forms-templates/
http://www.dpcorner.com/all_about/releases.shtml
...and this site requires the photographer to sign a release to allow
use of images on their products,
http://presentsofmind.com/
http://presentsofmind.com/html/photographers%20release.htm
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Miller
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gtsa2d$ona$1@qmul...
That's a fairly simplistic description of something that is almost never so
simply stated. Given the limited facts supplied by the OP it is fairly easy
to see how there may be a misunderstanding concerning the things that were
not contemplated by the photographer or the model at the time of the gift.
If the photograph later becomes valuable (e.g., the later actress dies
tragically and these are the only semi-nude images of her) and her heirs
publish the image after the photographer has signed a contract to sell
prints (because he duplicated the negative for the model to make her own
prints but did not anticipate that she might seek to publish them). Or maybe
the photographer becomes famous and the negative represents one of a few
examples of his early work that the model now wants to publish for profit.
In such situations, it is easy to see how each party might have a different
understanding of what rights, if any, existed and may have been transferred
when the print and negative were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing
specific was stated at the time of the gift, they might each legitimately
view each others intent very differently.
In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com
>
Pat
> Thanks for the replies. The example I used didn't involve me
> personally, but a friend who was the subject. But I have something
> coming up that may be even more complicated.
>
> There's a local cocktail lounge (ok, it's a bar) which displays a
> dozen or so works of a different local artist each month. In
> addition, on one night the artist comes in with a model and sets up
> down at one end, and proceeds to paint the model's portrait while
> the bar patrons watch. This is "Live Art" night.
>
> Well, I proposed a "wouldn't it be cool" idea to the bar owner that
> I would set up my little Canon on a tripod, and make a time lapse
> sequence of the creation of the portrait - specifically, the camera
> would be focused exclusively on the canvas. Then basically the
> resulting video would be available to anyone involved. The bar
> owner could run it as a continuous loop on one of the bar's
> many video screens. And the artist could use it on his website, or
> perhaps give a copy of it to whoever ends up buying the painting.
> And similarly, I could maybe put it up on Vimeo or some similar site
> if it turns out well. And maybe the model would want a copy.
>
> Of course, no money is gonna change hands in this - it's just a
> hobby experiment for me. Originally, I started thinking about what
> to include in the credits at the end of the video, and had
> concluded they should include the artist, me, the model, and the
> bar. And, of course, Canon and CHDK. :-)
>
> But then it occurred to me that the question of who actually had the
> right to do anything with the video was pretty loosey-goosey. I'm
> not sure anything really needs to be done about that. There
> certainly is no budget for legal fees, and it's highly unlikely the
> video itself will ever generate income. I certainly don't mind
> deferring to the artist as to rights, provided I get credit for the
> photography, and provided I get to use it as an example of something
> I've done - as part of my online portfolio, so to speak.
>
> Unless somebody knows of a standard "time lapse release" form, I
> think I should leave it up to the artist to raise this issue, and
> then gracefully defer to whatever he wants to do. But conceptually,
> it's an interesting issue because to me it seems the artist's role
> is more significant than just being the subject or model. Legally
> he's probably just the subject, but he's also the primary creator of
> the work.
Have the artist do it on a digital palette and project that, live, on
the TVs.
What would be cooler would be to have you, a photographer, do it live
in front of everyone. Take a "before" picture, then set up you
lights, background, etc. Bring in someone to do hair and makeup.
Then take the "after" and let them see the transformation, live. Why
can't YOU be the artist??
whisky-dave
"Eric Miller" <miller_no...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tnkMl.38219$qa.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:gtsa2d$ona$1@qmul...
>>
>> "Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>> news:4a01a36e$0$48219$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>>
>>>
>>> We have to let lawyers and judges make a living, right?
>>>
>>> Seriously, laws cannot be written to cover EVERY situation. That is
>>> what courts are for. In the above situation, I can see such a case going
>>> to court and letting the judge or jury decide. The best way to avoid
>>> court is to get any agreement in writing. The answer lies with the best
>>> lawywer :-)
>>
>> It's a sad situation though isn;t it, in that being in the right or the
>> wrong
>> depends on how good your lawyer is, which is probably linked to how much
>> he charges.
>> It seems that basically a laywer is employed to lie on your behalf, the
>> more you can afford
>> the better the lie he'll construct.
>>
>>
>
> That's a fairly simplistic description of something that is almost never
> so simply stated. Given the limited facts supplied by the OP it is fairly
> easy to see how there may be a misunderstanding concerning the things that
> were not contemplated by the photographer or the model at the time of the
> gift.
But that shouldn't matter, but that's the problem with the law isn;t it.
If we';re worried by what the term gift means then you seem to be impling
that the word gift can change depending on your lawyers skill.
> If the photograph later becomes valuable (e.g., the later actress dies
> tragically and these are the only semi-nude images of her) and her heirs
> publish the image after the photographer has signed a contract to sell
> prints (because he duplicated the negative for the model to make her own
> prints but did not anticipate that she might seek to publish them). Or
> maybe the photographer becomes famous and the negative represents one of a
> few examples of his early work that the model now wants to publish for
> profit. In such situations, it is easy to see how each party might have a
> different understanding of what rights,
But those rightsd are writern in law surelty they don;t change depending on
the laywer you employ or the salery he's paid.
>if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and negative
>were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific was stated at the
>time of the gift, they might each legitimately view each others intent very
>differently.
But the law should be the law.
>
> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
> client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the laywers
pay packet.
J. Clarke
"That depends on what you mean by 'is'."
--
William Jefferson Clinton
>> If the photograph later becomes valuable (e.g., the later actress
>> dies tragically and these are the only semi-nude images of her) and
>> her heirs publish the image after the photographer has signed a
>> contract to sell prints (because he duplicated the negative for the
>> model to make her own prints but did not anticipate that she might
>> seek to publish them). Or maybe the photographer becomes famous and
>> the negative represents one of a few examples of his early work that
>> the model now wants to publish for profit. In such situations, it is
>> easy to see how each party might have a different understanding of
>> what rights,
>
> But those rightsd are writern in law surelty they don;t change
> depending on the laywer you employ or the salery he's paid.
I do not recall who said "The law is whatever you can convince a judge that
it is", but that is part of the job of a lawyer.
>> if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and
>> negative were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific was
>> stated at the time of the gift, they might each legitimately view
>> each others intent very differently.
>
> But the law should be the law.
But intent is always a part of the law. In this case you're dealing with
the question of whether a contract existed and if so what the terms of that
contract were.
>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
>> client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
>
> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
> laywers pay packet.
The question is this case is not one of fact but of interpretation--the
"reasonable man" test is going to be the major factor, with counsel on both
sides attempting to convince the court that the notional "reasonable man"
would believe that copyright had or had not been transferred.
Eric Miller
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
No, that is your inference, not my implication. It isn't that the word
"gift" has different meanings depending on a lawyer's skill; the underlying
question is what, exactly, was given. It is easy to see how the photographer
and model might view the gift as different things: one the print, the
negative and the permission to make additional prints, the other the
copyright.
>> If the photograph later becomes valuable (e.g., the later actress dies
>> tragically and these are the only semi-nude images of her) and her heirs
>> publish the image after the photographer has signed a contract to sell
>> prints (because he duplicated the negative for the model to make her own
>> prints but did not anticipate that she might seek to publish them). Or
>> maybe the photographer becomes famous and the negative represents one of
>> a few examples of his early work that the model now wants to publish for
>> profit. In such situations, it is easy to see how each party might have a
>> different understanding of what rights,
>
> But those rightsd are writern in law surelty they don;t change depending
> on
> the laywer you employ or the salery he's paid.
>
What rights are you talking about? And are the rights of which you speak the
object of the "gift.?"
>>if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and negative
>>were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific was stated at the
>>time of the gift, they might each legitimately view each others intent
>>very differently.
>
> But the law should be the law.
>
Rest assured, it is. Whatever was given was given. Whatever was not given
was not given. There, that leaves only the determination what what was, in
fact, given. Let's ask the photographer and the model to tell us. Surely
they will completely agree . . .
>>
>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
>> client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
>
> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
> laywers pay packet.
>
Agreed. So how should it be decided when the only two witnesses tell two
different stories?
Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com
Eric Miller
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gtuuq...@news1.newsguy.com...
Whoever said it should also have said that the facts are whatever you can
convince a judge that they are. Judges and lawyers are people. If people
always agreed on the meaning of the written word, this thread, among other
things, would not be as long as it is.
>>> if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and
>>> negative were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific was
>>> stated at the time of the gift, they might each legitimately view
>>> each others intent very differently.
>>
>> But the law should be the law.
>
> But intent is always a part of the law.
And the intention of the parties is a question of fact that must be decided
by the judge. The lack of a written contract can make that inquiry a very
messy one.
>>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
>>> client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
>>
>> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
>> laywers pay packet.
>
> The question is this case is not one of fact but of interpretation--the
> "reasonable man" test is going to be the major factor, with counsel on
> both sides attempting to convince the court that the notional "reasonable
> man" would believe that copyright had or had not been transferred.
Assuming that there was no "meeting of the minds" regarding the gift, I
would suspect that the court would likely look at other factually similar
cases, if available, or custom (how do other photographers and models treat
such transactions, how do they effect a transfer of copyright, etc.),
depending on the jurisdiction. Lacking any further guidance, the judge may
just rule in such a fashion as he or she deems reasonable based upon the
testimony of the parties.
Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com
Andrew Koenig
news:dcd79022-6a88-46ed...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> One would think that if it went to court, and the "model" had the
> negatives; then the model would argue that it was "work for hire" and
> that (s)he was the copyright owner and the OP was nothing other than
> the photographer. The copyright does not necessarily belong to the
> person who pushed the shutter button.
I believe that in the absence of a written agreement or a W-2 form, the
copyright belongs to the person who pushed the shutter button.
Justin C
> Thanks for the replies. The example I used didn't involve me
If the bar owner hasn't commissioned you, nor the painter, then you are
the artist of the pictures. It would be courteous, perhaps, to not show
the final painting in your work, or keep the camera further from it -
maybe position the camera to show both the painter and his subject, that
keeps the resolution of the final painting lower and less able to be
copied.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Bob Larter
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't.
Legally, it doesn't. OTOH, without the negative, it'd be pretty hard to
prove that you took the photo.
> Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
In theory, saying so would be enough, but without anything in writing,
again, it'd be hard to prove that the transfer took place.
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
There's plenty of info out there. I don't have any URLs handy, but I'm
sure that others will provide their favourites.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> Also you are talking about "model". In some jurisdictions this would
> require a model release form, i.e. a confirmation from the model that
> you are allowed to take and publish those photos.
As I understand it, a model release is only necessary for commercial
publishing, (eg; ads), & is not required for editorial or private use.
Bob Larter
> Nicko says...
>
> >> Also you are talking about "model". In some
> >> jurisdictions this would require a model release form,
> >> i.e. a confirmation from the model that you are allowed
> >> to take and publish those photos.
>
> > The subject of a photo becomes a "model" in legal terms,
> > only when he/ she agrees to a contract regarding the
> > rights to the photo.
>
> > Otherwise, the person is just the subject of the photo.
>
> Could you explain this a bit more? It's not clear what
> rights the subject of a photo has.
Almost none, unless the photo is used in an ad, or defames the person.
> I know there have been
> recent cases where someone's picture was used for
> advertising, and they objected to that.
In that case, they can.
> But if I just take
> someone's picture, does he/she have any rights in the
> photograph?
Legally, no. In practice, it might make you very unpopular.
Bob Larter
It's possible, albeit difficult, to prove which neg is the original.
OTOH, I wouldn't want to have to pay for the expert witness, lab time, etc.
whisky-dave
But it's the job of the lawyer to but his point to the jury not judge,
it is the jury who decides on guilty or innocence, the judge gives the
sentance
and is more like a referee in a boxing match.
>>> if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and
>>> negative were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific was
>>> stated at the time of the gift, they might each legitimately view
>>> each others intent very differently.
>>
>> But the law should be the law.
>
> But intent is always a part of the law. In this case you're dealing with
> the question of whether a contract existed and if so what the terms of
> that contract were.
But surely whether or not the contract existed should not depend on the
salary
of the laywer employed.
>>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
>>> client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
>>
>> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
>> laywers pay packet.
>
> The question is this case is not one of fact but of interpretation--the
> "reasonable man" test is going to be the major factor, with counsel on
> both sides attempting to convince the court that the notional "reasonable
> man" would believe that copyright had or had not been transferred.
And that depends on the skills of the lawyer ?
>
whisky-dave
So what makes you think a lawyer understands more of what the model or
the photographer meant at the time.
>>> If the photograph later becomes valuable (e.g., the later actress dies
>>> tragically and these are the only semi-nude images of her) and her heirs
>>> publish the image after the photographer has signed a contract to sell
>>> prints (because he duplicated the negative for the model to make her own
>>> prints but did not anticipate that she might seek to publish them). Or
>>> maybe the photographer becomes famous and the negative represents one of
>>> a few examples of his early work that the model now wants to publish for
>>> profit. In such situations, it is easy to see how each party might have
>>> a different understanding of what rights,
>>
>> But those rightsd are writern in law surelty they don;t change depending
>> on
>> the laywer you employ or the salery he's paid.
>>
>
> What rights are you talking about? And are the rights of which you speak
> the object of the "gift.?"
Copyright law is reasonably well know, but perhaps if I paid a lawyer enough
I could copy one of your photos and sell it for profit and that would be OK
because my lawyer could prove I didn't make a profit.
>>>if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and negative
>>>were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific was stated at the
>>>time of the gift, they might each legitimately view each others intent
>>>very differently.
>>
>> But the law should be the law.
>>
>
> Rest assured, it is. Whatever was given was given. Whatever was not given
> was not given. There, that leaves only the determination what what was, in
> fact, given. Let's ask the photographer and the model to tell us. Surely
> they will completely agree . . .
So why do we need lawyers of greatly differing abilities and why chose
one above the other.
>>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate his
>>> client's version of the facts that would underlie any future verdict.
>>
>> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
>> laywers pay packet.
>>
>
> Agreed. So how should it be decided when the only two witnesses tell two
> different stories?
Isn't that what the 12 jury members are for ?
Bob Larter
>> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
>> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
>
> If you took the pictures "for her", so to speak, she owns the
> copyright.
Well, only if she's paid for the work, & has a contract saying so. The
default is that the photographer owns the copyright. OTOH, if you're
silly enough to hand over the neg's, good luck trying to argue that you
own the copyright.
J. Clarke
You are confusing the roles of lawyer and judge.
>>>> If the photograph later becomes valuable (e.g., the later actress
>>>> dies tragically and these are the only semi-nude images of her)
>>>> and her heirs publish the image after the photographer has signed
>>>> a contract to sell prints (because he duplicated the negative for
>>>> the model to make her own prints but did not anticipate that she
>>>> might seek to publish them). Or maybe the photographer becomes
>>>> famous and the negative represents one of a few examples of his
>>>> early work that the model now wants to publish for profit. In such
>>>> situations, it is easy to see how each party might have a
>>>> different understanding of what rights,
>>>
>>> But those rightsd are writern in law surelty they don;t change
>>> depending on
>>> the laywer you employ or the salery he's paid.
>>>
>>
>> What rights are you talking about? And are the rights of which you
>> speak the object of the "gift.?"
>
> Copyright law is reasonably well know, but perhaps if I paid a lawyer
> enough I could copy one of your photos and sell it for profit and
> that would be OK because my lawyer could prove I didn't make a profit.
If your lawyer made a sufficiently compelling argument and his made a
sufficiently weak one (consider his hiring the public defender in "My Cousin
Vinny") then you might prevail in this manner.
>>>> if any, existed and may have been transferred when the print and
>>>> negative were handed to the model. In fact, if nothing specific
>>>> was stated at the time of the gift, they might each legitimately
>>>> view each others intent very differently.
>>>
>>> But the law should be the law.
>>>
>>
>> Rest assured, it is. Whatever was given was given. Whatever was not
>> given was not given. There, that leaves only the determination what
>> what was, in fact, given. Let's ask the photographer and the model
>> to tell us. Surely they will completely agree . . .
>
> So why do we need lawyers of greatly differing abilities and why chose
> one above the other.
Uh, your sarcasm detector needs a new fuse.
>>>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate
>>>> his client's version of the facts that would underlie any future
>>>> verdict.
>>>
>>> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
>>> laywers pay packet.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. So how should it be decided when the only two witnesses tell
>> two different stories?
>
> Isn't that what the 12 jury members are for ?
Ultimately the court decides. If you go in without a lawyer and your
opponent goes in with a lawyer, then the jury is very likely going to hang
you--"A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".
Chris H
da...@final.front.ear> writes
>So what makes you think a lawyer understands more of what the model or
>the photographer meant at the time.
Being a (highly paid) lawyer he has divine knowledge about the law and
what was really contracted in Law.
Of course the opposing (equally highly paid) Lawyer also has divine
knowledge about the law and what was really meant by the verbal/written
and implied contract and at your expense will correct the first lawyer
At this point, also at your expense the first Lawyer can show the second
lawyer the error of his interpretation..... etc until one side or the
other runs out of money.
>> What rights are you talking about? And are the rights of which you speak
>> the object of the "gift.?"
>
>Copyright law is reasonably well know, but perhaps if I paid a lawyer enough
>I could copy one of your photos and sell it for profit and that would be OK
>because my lawyer could prove I didn't make a profit.
Absolutely,,,, The lawyers bill would probably more than compensate for
any profit real or imagined :-)
>> Rest assured, it is. Whatever was given was given. Whatever was not given
>> was not given. There, that leaves only the determination what what was, in
>> fact, given. Let's ask the photographer and the model to tell us. Surely
>> they will completely agree . . .
>
>So why do we need lawyers of greatly differing abilities and why chose
>one above the other.
Because neither the photographer or model understood the law and there
is probably a difference between what they said and what they though it
meant when there are lawyers making money
>> Agreed. So how should it be decided when the only two witnesses tell two
>> different stories?
>
>Isn't that what the 12 jury members are for ?
No... The 12 jury members are there as an audience to marvel at the
double act that is the defence and prosecution Lawyers. They are there
to be amazed, confused, baffled and led in two mutually exclusive One
True Paths....
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bob Larter
"work for hire" requires a contact. It's not automatic when someone pays
you for a job.
whisky-dave
>> Copyright law is reasonably well know, but perhaps if I paid a lawyer
>> enough I could copy one of your photos and sell it for profit and
>> that would be OK because my lawyer could prove I didn't make a profit.
>
> If your lawyer made a sufficiently compelling argument and his made a
> sufficiently weak one (consider his hiring the public defender in "My
> Cousin
> Vinny") then you might prevail in this manner.
So as I'm implying it's more about the lawyer than your own guilt or
innocence.
>>>> But the law should be the law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rest assured, it is. Whatever was given was given. Whatever was not
>>> given was not given. There, that leaves only the determination what
>>> what was, in fact, given. Let's ask the photographer and the model
>>> to tell us. Surely they will completely agree . . .
>>
>> So why do we need lawyers of greatly differing abilities and why chose
>> one above the other.
>
> Uh, your sarcasm detector needs a new fuse.
It's changed, I think the need comes down to money & profit rather than
getting to the truth.
>>>>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate
>>>>> his client's version of the facts that would underlie any future
>>>>> verdict.
>>>>
>>>> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
>>>> laywers pay packet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. So how should it be decided when the only two witnesses tell
>>> two different stories?
>>
>> Isn't that what the 12 jury members are for ?
>
> Ultimately the court decides. If you go in without a lawyer and your
> opponent goes in with a lawyer, then the jury is very likely going to hang
> you--"A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".
So as I say it's the lawyer that is important not the guilt or the innocence
of the accussed.
>