Copyright law unfair.
Alasdair Baxter
the author or copyright owner.
Many years ago, when I first graduated, I had graduation pics taken by
a "one man band" photographer. I recently wanted additional copies so
I wrote to the photographer but my letters to himr were returned "Not
at this Address". I checked in the phone book for the relevant area
and no-one of that name was shown.
Legally, although I paid the market rate for the pics, the copyright
is still with the photographer and will remain with him and his
descendants for 70 years after he dies.
Although I have no way of contacting him and he might be dead, gone
abroad, be in prison or whatever, I am not allowed to get extra copies
of the photographs until I have his written permission.
Just how much effort is a customer supposed to expend to get the
permission. If the law were fair, it would say "reasonable effort",
but the requirement for permission seems to be absolute and it could
take an absolute fortune to track down the personal representatives of
a deceased photographer who was in practice 30 or 40 years ago.
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Alasdair Baxter
Alasdair Baxter
DGArgue
quality won't be the same as copying from a negative but with today's
technology it should be acceptable.
Then it is up to the original owner of the negative to sue you for breach of
copyright IF he feels his rights have been infringed. Which if he has
disappeared he is unlikely to do. End of story.
Tim Jacobs
the permission.
Tim
--
Tim Jacobs timothy...@gecm.com
These are my views, not those of my employer.
"DGArgue" <dga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000414030751...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
Tim Martin
"Tim Jacobs" <timothy...@gecm.com> wrote in message
news:38f6d802$1...@pull.gecm.com...
> Most copying places I've come across won't copy items of this nature
without
> the permission.
Last time I checked (many, many years ago) the copyright in a portrait
photograph belongs to the person who commissioned it, not the photographer.
Tim
Paul Wolff
<dga...@aol.com> writes
>Not unfair at all. What's to stop you getting the photograph copied? OK, the
>quality won't be the same as copying from a negative but with today's
>technology it should be acceptable.
>
>Then it is up to the original owner of the negative to sue you for breach of
>copyright IF he feels his rights have been infringed. Which if he has
>disappeared he is unlikely to do. End of story.
I see. Take what you want, and pay up if you're caught. A commentary
on our times :(
--
Obiter scripta - Paul Wolff
Bill Boardman
> I think copyright law is very unfair and highly biased in favour of
> the author or copyright owner.
That's exactly who it should be in favour of. If it is the author then
he has done the work, and if it is the copyright holder then he has paid
for the copyright, directly or indirectly.
>
> Many years ago, when I first graduated, I had graduation pics taken by
> a "one man band" photographer. I recently wanted additional copies so
> I wrote to the photographer but my letters to himr were returned "Not
> at this Address". I checked in the phone book for the relevant area
> and no-one of that name was shown.
Is your term "one man band" meant to be derogatory? Perhaps the majority
of phootographers are self employed, but it doesn't lessen their rights
with regard to the copyright on their work. It has always been difficult
to find a photographer who has moved out of one town to another, but it
is getting easier all the time. The practice of using a domain/email
address in the copyright notice is growing, and should make the task
easier in future.
>
> Legally, although I paid the market rate for the pics, the copyright
> is still with the photographer and will remain with him and his
> descendants for 70 years after he dies.
You only paid the "market rate" for the "pics" and did not pay the
market rate for the copyright or you would have an agreement which
passed copyright over to you.
>
> Although I have no way of contacting him and he might be dead, gone
> abroad, be in prison or whatever, I am not allowed to get extra copies
> of the photographs until I have his written permission.
It can be a real pain when this happens, but it is a good thing from a
photographers point of view. Local print shops used to copy
photographers work without asking permission and they profitted whilst
the photographer didn't. You will find very few copy shops will do that
now, as they know they run the very real risk of being sued.
>
> Just how much effort is a customer supposed to expend to get the
> permission. If the law were fair, it would say "reasonable effort",
> but the requirement for permission seems to be absolute and it could
> take an absolute fortune to track down the personal representatives of
> a deceased photographer who was in practice 30 or 40 years ago.
>
"reasonable effort" to one person is not the same to all.
I run a photographic business and I have 20+ photographers who work for
me on a freelance basis. When they undertake work for me they assign
copyright of all photographs over to me and are paid a higher sum than
if the copyright stayed with them. Now if any one wants a copy of the
photograph they must apply to me. I can give permission, in varying
degrees for varying amounts of money. If someone wants to buy the
copyright from me, I am willing to sell, but if they use/copy the
photograph without permission then I always take legal action. Of course
this would be difficult for me to know, if it was purely for personal
use.
Have you contacted any of the photographic associations they will have a
directory of all members and you may find him that way. If you want to
email me his name I will look through the MPA directory and the BIPP
directory for you.
--
Bill
Bill Boardman
That is not the case now, if it ever was. The copyright is always with
the author unless assigned to someone else, but it must be assigned.
If you pay to have your portrait taken you do not get copyright unless
you specify beforehand that you wish to own the copyright. The
photographer then has the choice to charge you extra for the copyright
(rubs hands together) or to let you have it for free.
--
Bill
Bill Boardman
> Not unfair at all. What's to stop you getting the photograph copied?
You may be prepared to take that risk, but not many places are will to.
There have been quite cases where high street chemists with a photo lab
have copied copyright materia,l and have paid the price :) They now send
memo's to their labs not to copy any copyright material. It is not worth
their while to end up in court for the sake of a couple of pounds,
although it is normal for them just to settle directly with the
photographer by payment normally between £250-£500 for the first
infraction :)))
>OK, the
> quality won't be the same as copying from a negative but with today's
> technology it should be acceptable.
Depends on who is weilding the technology and what your idea of
acceptable is.
>
> Then it is up to the original owner of the negative to sue you for breach of
> copyright IF he feels his rights have been infringed. Which if he has
> disappeared he is unlikely to do. End of story.
First you have to find a place that will copy it. I can tell you that
there are some, who are not aware of the law and will copy it for you,
but they are few and far between.
I have had one customer who complained to me that the copy (of a
portrait I had taken of her family) she had had done at a local minilab
was terrible. I invited her to bring me the original, copy and receipt.
I explained to her the copyright law and that she didn't have a right to
get copies made. She didn't realise and I guess most people may not, but
the minilab is in the photographic world and they should know the law
with regard to copyright.
I recovered the negative the minilab had made of my work and accepted
£275 compensation from them as well as an apology and an assurance that
it will not happen again. Do you think they will copy another
photographers work in future?
I could have taken action against my client, but that would be counter
productive and less likely to succeed than with the minilab.
If you know of somewhere that is prepared to copy copyright material,
please post it here so that everyone can benefit :)))
--
Bill
Eugene Svoboda
>
> > I think copyright law is very unfair and highly biased in favour of
> > the author or copyright owner.
>
> That's exactly who it should be in favour of. If it is the author then
> he has done the work, and if it is the copyright holder then he has paid
> for the copyright, directly or indirectly.
ES:
Would you care to explain why?
Would you know the origin of the copyright laws?
The copyright laws are unfair outdated and unnecessary.
Eugene Svoboda
> "Tim Jacobs" <timothy...@gecm.com> wrote in message
> news:38f6d802$1...@pull.gecm.com...
> > Most copying places I've come across won't copy items of this nature
> without
> > the permission.
>
> Last time I checked (many, many years ago) the copyright in a portrait
> photograph belongs to the person who commissioned it, not the photographer.
ES:
Not necessarily. It depends on the original contract.
Eugene Svoboda
>
> Not unfair at all. What's to stop you getting the photograph copied? OK, the
> quality won't be the same as copying from a negative but with today's
> technology it should be acceptable.
>
> copyright IF he feels his rights have been infringed. Which if he has
> disappeared he is unlikely to do. End of story.
ES:
Why should someone be FORCED to break the law - as you suggest?
Do you advise (with such eloquence) people to break other laws?
If not, don't you think your very own advice makes a very good case for
what Alasdair said?!
JimWil
they shouldn't be in favour of the author or copyright owner?
Jim
Eugene Svoboda <e_sv...@isc-queens.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38F733...@isc-queens.co.uk...
Tim Martin
"Bill Boardman" <bboa...@callnetO8OO.com> wrote in message
news:1e931ma.1dswbkz1h0rdquN%bboa...@callnetO8OO.com...
> Tim Martin <T...@compunola.screaming.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Last time I checked (many, many years ago) the copyright in a portrait
> > photograph belongs to the person who commissioned it, not the
photographer.
> >
> the author unless assigned to someone else, but it must be assigned.
>
Author, yes; portrait photographer, no. UK copyright law had a specific
exception for portraits. This was true 20 years ago. I don't know if there
have been relevant changes since then.
Unless there has been a change in the last 20 years, then if someone
commissions a portrait of a pperson, they will own the copyright in the
portrait.
Of course this can be varied by contract; but unless the photgrapher
proposes something different before taking the portrait picture, the
copyright in it will belong to the person who commissioned it.
Incidentally, this does not apply to non-portrait pictures, where copyright
belongs to the photographer.
Tim
Bill Boardman
> > Alasdair Baxter <alas...@inveriggan.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I think copyright law is very unfair and highly biased in favour of
> > > the author or copyright owner.
> >
> Bill Boardman wrote:
> > That's exactly who it should be in favour of. If it is the author then
> > he has done the work, and if it is the copyright holder then he has paid
> > for the copyright, directly or indirectly.
> (cut)
>
> ES:
> Would you care to explain why?
I have already explained why ie If it is the author then he has done the
work, and if it is the copyright holder then he has paid for the
copyright, directly or indirectly.
> Would you know the origin of the copyright laws?
Is this a trick question? Does the origin matter? Not to me it doesn't,
only the effect it has on my business and how I can apply it.
> The copyright laws are unfair outdated and unnecessary.
Unfair to whom? Outdated.. they are relatively new. They may be
unneccessary to someone who does not produce anything original, but for
those who do then it is a safeguard, it is not foolproof, but it helps.
--
Bill
Rainer Thonnes
"Tim Martin" <T...@compunola.screaming.net> writes:
>
>Unless there has been a change in the last 20 years, then if someone
>commissions a portrait of a pperson, they will own the copyright in the
>portrait.
>
>belongs to the photographer.
This raises a thorny question. What essential features distinguish
a portrait from a non-portrait? Surely it can't merely be the fact
that the picture contains one or more persons. Indeed, a portrait
need not be of a person. What's to stop me commissioning you to
photograph (or paint) a portrait of my cat, or of the view from my
bedroom window?
Bill Boardman
> Author, yes; portrait photographer, no. UK copyright law had a specific
> exception for portraits. This was true 20 years ago. I don't know if there
> have been relevant changes since then.
The copyright of a portrait belongs to the photographer unless it has
been reassigned. The photographer holding the copyright does not have
carte blanche to do as he will with the image, ie he can't use it in an
advertising campaign unless he has permission from the subject or in the
case of an animal portrait, the owner.
>
> Unless there has been a change in the last 20 years, then if someone
> commissions a portrait of a pperson, they will own the copyright in the
> portrait.
Read above.
>
> Of course this can be varied by contract; but unless the photgrapher
> proposes something different before taking the portrait picture, the
> copyright in it will belong to the person who commissioned it.
The copyright is always with the photographer unless he assigns it to
someone else. If you ask me to take your portrait, but don't ask me
about copyright, then it is mine. If you do ask me before you have the
portrait taken and decide you do not want to pay my fee for assigning
the copyright to you, you are free to go to another photographer.
>
> Incidentally, this does not apply to non-portrait pictures, where copyright
> belongs to the photographer.
>
If, he hasn't assigned it to someone else as part of his employment or
as part of the terms for him receiving the commission in the first
place.
If you commission me to take a photograph of your house, the copyright
is mine unless we came to an agreement beforehand. If there was no
agreement then it's my copyright. If you told me (before I took the
commission) that you wanted to have postcards made from the photograph
then the copyright is still mine and you would be granted a licence to
enable you to have postcards made. The licence would not permit you to
have calendars made later on for example, unless that was also a
pre-requite to my getting the commission.
I have just been informed that there has been a slight change to the
copyright law in the last month or so, but I believe it is only with
regard to the length of time the copyright is assigned to the estate of
the copyright holder, after his death. When I get confirmation I will
let you know unless someone else can confirm it.
--
Bill
Alasdair Baxter
Boardman) wrote:
>Is your term "one man band" meant to be derogatory? Perhaps the majority
>of phootographers are self employed, but it doesn't lessen their rights
>with regard to the copyright on their work. It has always been difficult
>to find a photographer who has moved out of one town to another, but it
>is getting easier all the time. The practice of using a domain/email
>address in the copyright notice is growing, and should make the task
>easier in future.
No, I am not using the expression "one man band" in any pejorative
sense. Although the majority are, one is not legally obliged to be a
member of a professional body to be a self-employed photographer and
therefore tracing an "amateur" could be quite difficult. When I had
my graduation photos taken, domain and e-mail addresses were totally
unknown.
>You only paid the "market rate" for the "pics" and did not pay the
>market rate for the copyright or you would have an agreement which
>passed copyright over to you.
This is not an option that is normally offered when one has a portrait
taken. The onus is always placed on the customer to ask about
copyright and few customers know anything about it. Perhaps
professional photographers should say to their prospective customers
something like: "For the fee you have been quoted, we retain the
copyright in the pictures and you cannot have copies made in the
future except by ourselves or with our permission. On the other hand,
we can sell you the copyright as well but there will be an additional
fee of for this". The customer then has the choice of going for
the cheap option or the more expensive one.
Tim Martin
"Bill Boardman" <bboa...@callnetO8OO.com> wrote in message
> The copyright of a portrait belongs to the photographer unless it has
> been reassigned.
Can you give some authority for this assertion?
As I say, around 1980, the law was that the copyright in portratits was
owned by the person who commissioned it. This information was in books such
as "The Writer's Yearbook" and in the Reader's Digest book "You and Your
Rights".
What legislation in the last 20 years has changed the ownership of copyright
of portraits?
Tim
Tim Martin
"Alasdair Baxter" <alas...@inveriggan.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38f8cbfc...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
> This is not an option that is normally offered when one has a portrait
> taken. The onus is always placed on the customer to ask about
> copyright and few customers know anything about it. Perhaps
> professional photographers should say to their prospective customers
> something like: "For the fee you have been quoted, we retain the
> copyright in the pictures and you cannot have copies made in the
> future except by ourselves or with our permission. On the other hand,
> we can sell you the copyright as well but there will be an additional
> fee of for this". The customer then has the choice of going for
> the cheap option or the more expensive one.
For your portrait, you own the copyright, and you are entitled to make
copies of it. I quote from "You and Your Rights", 1982 edition, page 126:
"Although copyright usually belongs to the creator of the work, there are
exceptions.
...
"If you engage a freelance photographer to take pictures for you - for
example, at a wedding - you will own the copyright of the photographs.
However, if the photographs have not been commissioned - for example, if a
friend takes them without payment - the photographer retains the copyright."
I think you've engaged a freelance photographer, and unless the contract
said anything different, you own the copyright in the photographs he took
for you.
Tim
Bill Boardman
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:05:26 +0100, bboa...@callnetO8OO.com (Bill
> Boardman) wrote:
>
>
> >You only paid the "market rate" for the "pics" and did not pay the
> >market rate for the copyright or you would have an agreement which
> >passed copyright over to you.
>
> This is not an option that is normally offered when one has a portrait
> taken. The onus is always placed on the customer to ask about
> copyright and few customers know anything about it. Perhaps
> professional photographers should say to their prospective customers
> something like: "For the fee you have been quoted, we retain the
> copyright in the pictures and you cannot have copies made in the
> future except by ourselves or with our permission.
Indeed, a lot of photographers do say that in their literature, even
though it is not a requirement.
> On the other hand, we can sell you the copyright as well but there will
> be an additional fee of for this". The customer then has the choice
> of going for the cheap option or the more expensive one.
Most social photographers would not contemplate selling the copyright of
their work or the negatives, although some would sell their grandmother,
to turn a profit. With the case of graduation photo's it is usually
production line photography and anything that differs from the norm is
likely to be rejected as too much hassle. I can't vouch for the
photographers who do this kind of work, but I suspect that once they
have produced the first order from each negative it is also the last,
with only the rare exception. I would prefer to offer the Neg &
Copyright for outright sale, as an extra to the main order, but that's
not the kind of work I do.
--
Bill
Eugene Svoboda
(CUT)
> I have already explained why ie If it is the author then he has done the
> work, and if it is the copyright holder then he has paid for the
> copyright, directly or indirectly.
es:
I am sorry, but you explained nothing. You just repeat what the Law
claims.
> es:
> > Would you know the origin of the copyright laws?
>
bb:
> Is this a trick question? Does the origin matter? Not to me it doesn't,
> only the effect it has on my business and how I can apply it.
>
es:
This is not correct. A law which was created for a completely different
purpose and which has transmogrigfied in to another - needs to be
questioned.
> > The copyright laws are unfair outdated and unnecessary.
>
bb:
> Unfair to whom? Outdated.. they are relatively new.
es:
What do you mean "relatively"? They are not NEW!
bb:
> They may be
> unneccessary to someone who does not produce anything original, but for
> those who do then it is a safeguard, it is not foolproof, but it helps.
>
es:
Safeguard what? I want to see you remembering the Copyright next time
you are photocopying...
Have you a Copyright Declaration forms next to your photocopier??
And if you do, do you fill them in and keep?!
> Bill
Bill Boardman
> "Bill Boardman" <bboa...@callnetO8OO.com> wrote in message
> news:1e938tt.khsku61o9ovxcN%bboa...@callnetO8OO.com...
>
> > The copyright of a portrait belongs to the photographer unless it has
> > been reassigned.
>
> Can you give some authority for this assertion?
The Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988
>
> As I say, around 1980, the law was that the copyright in portratits was
> owned by the person who commissioned it. This information was in books such
> as "The Writer's Yearbook" and in the Reader's Digest book "You and Your
> Rights".
>
> What legislation in the last 20 years has changed the ownership of copyright
> of portraits?
As above.
--
Bill
Bill Boardman
>
> For your portrait, you own the copyright, and you are entitled to make
> copies of it. I quote from "You and Your Rights", 1982 edition, page 126:
>
> "Although copyright usually belongs to the creator of the work, there are
> exceptions.
There were exeptions, ie when the author of the work is employed by a
company or has otherwise agreed to reassign the copyright. Or (*)
> ...
>
> "If you engage a freelance photographer to take pictures for you - for
> example, at a wedding - you will own the copyright of the photographs.
This is absolutely not the case and people are at risk of legal action,
should they follow your advice. Wedding photographers in particular are
well aware of the copyright law and all the one's I know will not
hesitate to take legal action for any infringements.
> However, if the photographs have not been commissioned - for example, if a
> friend takes them without payment - the photographer retains the copyright."
>
> I think you've engaged a freelance photographer, and unless the contract
> said anything different, you own the copyright in the photographs he took
> for you.
>
I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that he engaged a
freelance photographer on the basis of what was stated. Usually, but not
always, the university/colledge contracted with the photographer to take
Graduation photographs on a speculative basis. If that was the case and
the photographs were pre 1988, then the subject of the photograph does
not own copyright and has no right to make copies. If it was pre 1988
and the subject (sitter) commissioned the freelance photographer, the
subject still does not own the copyright.
Prior to the 1988 act the owner of the copyright was deemed to be the
person who owned the material ie negatives, so a photographer working
for a company using company stock would not own copyright, the company
would. With regard to portraiture pre 1988 the copyright would never
belong to the sitter unless reassigned either by pre arrangement or
later.
(*) Pre 1988, if a third party commissioned a portrait then they owned
the copyright, unless reassigned. It is highly unlikely that a
University would have commissioned a photographer to take (individual)
graduation photographs as this would mean the University had to pay, but
it may have been argued that the University held the copyright if the
Uni commissioned the photographer.
The situation was quite muddy as, if the photographs were taken on a
speculative basis, as was the norm many years ago, then the photographs
weren't commissioned. The only way the sitter would have copyright is if
the photographer/company assigned it to him/her or a third party
commissioned the photograph and reassigned copyright to the sitter.
Today the Law is clearer on copyright and if you continue to give advice
on the subject may I suggest something a little more up to date, perhaps
"A users guide to the Copyright, Designs & Patent act 1998. Published by
Butterworths and written by Michael Flint. Copyright theft is not seen
to be real theft by the general public, but later this year it should
become law that it is punishable/accountable in the same way theft of an
object is.
--
Bill
Bill Boardman
> Bill Boardman wrote:
> (CUT)
> > I have already explained why ie If it is the author then he has done the
> > work, and if it is the copyright holder then he has paid for the
> > copyright, directly or indirectly.
>
> es:
> I am sorry, but you explained nothing. You just repeat what the Law
> claims.
Your question was: Would you care to explain why? If, my answer was just
repeating what the law claims, then I will amend my answer to; Because
the laws says it is so. If you are trying to argue that it should belong
to some else, I am not interested in theories, only in the way it
applies in present law and affects my business.
>
> > es:
> > > Would you know the origin of the copyright laws?
> >
> bb:
> > Is this a trick question? Does the origin matter? Not to me it doesn't,
> > only the effect it has on my business and how I can apply it.
> >
> es:
> This is not correct. A law which was created for a completely different
> purpose and which has transmogrigfied in to another - needs to be
> questioned.
>
It is correct. The origin doesn't matter to me, only how it affects my
business. I will follow the law as it is, not as you think it should be
or how it was. I am advised by a specialist and prefer to take his
advice, should I have a dispute about my copyright then I always take
legal advice on a per case basis. As you can tell IANAL, but I have
access to some of the best copyright specialist's in the UK. I will
always take their advice regarding the interpretation of copyright law,
and how it applies to me, over someone else's interpretation.
> > > The copyright laws are unfair outdated and unnecessary.
> >
> bb:
> > Unfair to whom? Outdated.. they are relatively new.
>
> es:
> What do you mean "relatively"? They are not NEW!
I never said they were NEW just relatively new, perhaps what I should
have said was that they been amended/updated recently or relatively
recently. The moment a law or act is passed then of course it starts to
become outdated, but the copyright act of 1988 is relatively recent/new.
You haven't answered "Unfair to whom?" although it really doesn't
matter, as there are so many things that are unfair. I prefer to get on
and not dwell on the unfairness of something I can't change or is in my
favour.
>
> bb:
> > They may be
> > unneccessary to someone who does not produce anything original, but for
> > those who do then it is a safeguard, it is not foolproof, but it helps.
> >
> es:
> Safeguard what?
Safeguard the rights of the author. I have the exclusive right to make
and sell copies of my work or licence others to do it, under certain
conditions.
> I want to see you remembering the Copyright next time
> you are photocopying...
I never photocopy anything. If I did, you can be sure that it would be
within the law/act.
Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to take the advice I have been given
as definitive. There is always likely to be a lawyer who will think he
can argue the exact opposite, but where my money is concerned, I am
happy to accept the advice of people with a proven track record.
--
Bill
Eugene Svoboda
(cut)
> Your question was: Would you care to explain why? If, my answer was just
> repeating what the law claims, then I will amend my answer to; Because
> the laws says it is so. If you are trying to argue that it should belong
> to some else, I am not interested in theories, only in the way it
> applies in present law and affects my business.
The original (see the subject of this append) was: the (copyright) law
is unfair.
You, as you benefit by/from this law, will obviously claim that it is
not unfair. I am sure it would suit you if the law's protection was
extended to say 100 years after your death.
Because you, and others benefit by this law, does not mean that the law
itself is fair.
Just because it was amended recently, it does not mean it is not
outdated.
To use your case (you seem to be a photographer), why should you hold,
and after your death your estate for 60 years, the copyright on MY
portrait? It is no good to answer "because it's the law".
OK, you will claim that you provided your skill (not to mention your
tools and equipment) and your time. You got paid for this
"inconvenience".
Does a plumber, who I call into my house, claims a copyright every time
I flash the loo he installed? Yet he too used his skills, his equipment
and his tools, to accomplish a job.
If you will claim that his is "a job", and yours is "an art" - you do
not know the plumber I use....
(cut)
bb:
> The origin doesn't matter to me, only how it affects my
> business. I will follow the law as it is, not as you think it should be
> or how it was. I am advised by a specialist..(cut)
I hope you now understand that an argument, such as you write above, is
not addressing the issue. Of course you obey the law. We all try our
best. Of course you employ a suitably qualified person to advise you.
Good for you! But that does not mean the law itself is not wrong. I am
sure you yourself will think of examples where you consider some other
law "an ass".
>
es:
> > > > The copyright laws are unfair outdated and unnecessary.
> > >
> > bb:
> > > Unfair to whom? Outdated.. they are relatively new.
The copyright law is as old as printing presses. It's origins were
attempts on censorship of publications. It has evolved into what it is
today by default.
The Law is unfair to me, for instance. The photograph (pardon me the
portrait) - as well as the copyright of it should be the subject's.
We should not need to have to break the law - in cases such as written
about by someone else.
(cut)
bb:
> You haven't answered "Unfair to whom?" although it really doesn't
> matter, as there are so many things that are unfair. I prefer to get on
> and not dwell on the unfairness of something I can't change or is in my
> favour.
(cut)
Perhaps, if you feel that way, you should not append to this discussion
either?
Alasdair Baxter
<e_sv...@isc-queens.co.uk> wrote:
>The copyright law is as old as printing presses. It's origins were
>attempts on censorship of publications. It has evolved into what it is
>today by default.
A lot older in fact. It goes back to the days of the scribes.
The earliest copyright case I know of goes back to the sixth century
and relates to a very famous Christian, St. Columba.
St. Columba, or Colmcille as he was known before the incident, decided
to hand copy a manuscript belonging to Finbar of Moville in Ireland.
Finbar was not happy and asked Columcille for the copy back.
Colmcille refused. The case came before the High King of Ireland who
decided "to every cow its calf and to every book its copy" and ordered
Colmcille to hand it over.
Colmcille sailed for the Isle of Iona off the west coast of Scotland,
became known as Columba and, as they say, the rest is history.
Tim Martin
"Bill Boardman" <bboa...@callnetO8OO.com> wrote in message
> Today the Law is clearer on copyright and if you continue to give advice
> on the subject may I suggest something a little more up to date, perhaps
> "A users guide to the Copyright, Designs & Patent act 1998. Published by
> Butterworths and written by Michael Flint.
Thanks for the pointer.
Tim
Tim Martin
"Bill Boardman" <bboa...@callnetO8OO.com> wrote in message
news:1e98ga3.4jyeaghvxddsN%bboa...@callnetO8OO.com...
> Usually, but not
> always, the university/colledge contracted with the photographer to take
> Graduation photographs on a speculative basis.
They may well have done, but the photographer undoubtedly asked the subject
if he'd like his picture taken; the subject presumably said "yes", thus
commissioning the portrait and establishing ownership of copyright if this
all took place before 1988.
I think your other comments about pre-1988 copyright are referring to
photographs in general, not portraits, which, as I've remarked, are or were
a special case.
The special provision for portraits is quite sensible; if you commission a
portrait, you don't expect that some years later the photographer will run
off copies and sell them. But the photographer would be entitled to do this
if without special provision for ownership of copyright in portraits.
Still, I ned to read up what's happened in the last 15 years. As well as
the Act of 1988, there was more legislation in 1996. I'd not noticed any
comment that either of these acts has altered the status of ownership of
copyright in portraits, which is why I'd assumed the situation was still as
it was in 1982..
Tim
Richard Watts
Bill Boardman <bboa...@callnet0800.com> wrote:
[snip]
>to be real theft by the general public, but later this year it should
>become law that it is punishable/accountable in the same way theft of an
>object is.
Hello! - I wasn't aware of this - are these proposals available
anywhere ?
The only thing I can see out there immediately is the Copyright and
Trade Marks Bill, which seems to be a couple of minor tweaks followed
by (mostly EU-inspired) half-baked cruft.
Richard.
--
Principles are things that everyone thinks everyone else should have.
Bill Boardman
> "Bill Boardman" <bboa...@callnetO8OO.com> wrote in message
> news:1e98ga3.4jyeaghvxddsN%bboa...@callnetO8OO.com...
>
> > Usually, but not
> > always, the university/colledge contracted with the photographer to take
> > Graduation photographs on a speculative basis.
>
> They may well have done, but the photographer undoubtedly asked the subject
> if he'd like his picture taken; the subject presumably said "yes", thus
> commissioning the portrait and establishing ownership of copyright if this
> all took place before 1988.
I am not 100% sure, but I think that there was a difference in taking
photo's on a (1) speculative basis and being commissioned to take
photo's.
Your little scenario falls down in that pre 1988 the copyright of a
portrait rested with the owner of the materials, unless it was
commissioned by a third party, who would then hold the copyright. The
sitter is not a third party, so doesn't get the copyright. If his mother
commissioned the photograph, then she would own the copyright.
>
> I think your other comments about pre-1988 copyright are referring to
> photographs in general, not portraits, which, as I've remarked, are or were
> a special case.
>
> The special provision for portraits is quite sensible; if you commission a
> portrait, you don't expect that some years later the photographer will run
> off copies and sell them. But the photographer would be entitled to do this
> if without special provision for ownership of copyright in portraits.
No that's not the case. Even though I may hold the copyright of any
portrait I take of you, I am not permitted to exhibit, publish or sell
to a third party without _your_ express permission. Some photographers
will have a clause, usually smallprint, in their booking form that says,
'By making this booking you agree that I may display any of the photo's
taken for self publicity etc' I think this kind of clause is wrong and
should be crossed out by anyone booking a photographer. I always ask
permission to use photographs for display, publicity or other purposes
and will always give a copy of each photo used to the client.
>
> Still, I ned to read up what's happened in the last 15 years. As well as
> the Act of 1988, there was more legislation in 1996. I'd not noticed any
> comment that either of these acts has altered the status of ownership of
> copyright in portraits, which is why I'd assumed the situation was still as
> it was in 1982..
Post 1988, the owner of the copyright including portraits, is the
author, regardless of a third party commission. (Unless it was
reassigned either by agreement or because of employment).
AFAIK 'photographic portraits' are not mentioned by name, but come under
'works of art' or something similar.
(1) Taking photographs in speculation of selling a copy later, but with
no obligation on the subject to buy any.
--
Bill
Bill Boardman
> In article <1e98ga3.4jyeaghvxddsN%bboa...@callnetO8OO.com>,
> Bill Boardman <bboa...@callnet0800.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >to be real theft by the general public, but later this year it should
> >become law that it is punishable/accountable in the same way theft of an
> >object is.
>
> Hello! - I wasn't aware of this - are these proposals available
> anywhere ?
I didn't copy the info and can't remember where I read it. I will go
through my browser history and see if I can find it that way.
>
> The only thing I can see out there immediately is the Copyright and
> Trade Marks Bill, which seems to be a couple of minor tweaks followed
> by (mostly EU-inspired) half-baked cruft.
>
I remember reading about that too, so it may be somewhere close to it.
--
Bill
Axel
> I recovered the negative the minilab had made of my work and accepted
> £275 compensation from them as well as an apology and an assurance that
> it will not happen again. Do you think they will copy another
> photographers work in future?
275 quid... you obviously charge a lot for copies of photographs!