re: copyright and copying photos at walmart

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mutt, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. mutt

    mutt Guest

    um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable consideration
    is it not?


    from the Canadian Government copyright information page:
    http://strategis.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#section04

    Generally, if you are the creator of the work, you own the copyright.
    However, if you create a work in the course of employment, the copyright
    belongs to your employer unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
    Similarly, if a person commissions a photograph, portrait, engraving, or
    print, the person ordering the work for valuable consideration is the first
    owner of copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary. The
    consideration must actually be paid for the copyright to belong to the
    person commissioning the photograph, portrait, engraving, or print. Also,
    you may legally transfer your rights to someone else, in which case, that
    person owns the copyright.

    So, just to complicate things that mean if i hired an artist or
    photographer to go and create a set of landscapes for example at their
    normal per diem rate + expences I should own those copyrights (and could
    make a case for the negitive films), as opposed to purchasing a ready made
    print at a retail galery or flea market in that case the creator of the
    image would retain the copyright.
    just wondering
     
    mutt, Apr 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mutt

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "mutt" <> wrote in message
    news:Z4hcc.2061$
    > um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    > potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    > copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable
    > consideration is it not?
    >
    >
    > from the Canadian Government copyright information page:
    > http://strategis.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#section04
    >
    > Generally, if you are the creator of the work, you own the copyright.
    > However, if you create a work in the course of employment, the
    > copyright belongs to your employer unless there is an agreement to
    > the contrary. Similarly, if a person commissions a photograph,
    > portrait, engraving, or print, the person ordering the work for
    > valuable consideration is the first owner of copyright unless there
    > is an agreement to the contrary. The consideration must actually be
    > paid for the copyright to belong to the person commissioning the
    > photograph, portrait, engraving, or print. Also, you may legally
    > transfer your rights to someone else, in which case, that person owns
    > the copyright.
    >
    > So, just to complicate things that mean if i hired an artist or
    > photographer to go and create a set of landscapes for example at their
    > normal per diem rate + expences I should own those copyrights (and
    > could make a case for the negitive films), as opposed to purchasing a
    > ready made print at a retail galery or flea market in that case the
    > creator of the image would retain the copyright.
    > just wondering



    Only if you meet the criteria you yourself laid out.

    "The consideration must actually be paid for the copyright to belong to the
    person commissioning the photograph, portrait, engraving, or print."

    In my case all of my contracts state that I am the absolute holder of the
    copyright and copies of any kind cannot be made. The exception to this is
    the small amount of commercial work I do in which case the original images
    are
    --
    "Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
    this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
    http://www.bobhatch.com
     
    Bob Hatch, Apr 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mutt

    Mxsmanic Guest

    mutt writes:

    > um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    > potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    > copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable consideration
    > is it not?


    It is not, at least in the United States and many other countries. You
    receive the copyright only if this is explicitly stated in the contract,
    or if the images are created by your employee as part of his normal work
    duties. An "employee" does not mean someone you hire on commission; it
    means someone to whom you pay a wage, along with tax deductions, health
    insurance, fixed working hours, and all the other accoutrements of
    normal employment.

    So you don't get the copyright just because you contract for the work.
    You get whatever is explictly stated in the contract, period.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 5, 2004
    #3
  4. mutt

    Chris Guest

    You're also plagued by Wally World's "policy" of refusing to allow you to
    copy any photo that "looks" like a studio produced it.

    I'd imagine they'd still refuse, even if you could produce documentation to
    verify your ownership.
     
    Chris, Apr 5, 2004
    #4
  5. mutt

    Charlie Self Guest

    mutt asks:

    >um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    >potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    >copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable consideration
    >is it not?


    No. Not in the U.S. Not unless it is specifically stated. Copyrights belong to
    the creators of the work unless written changes are provided. I owuldn't count
    on it elsewhere. If you want the copyright, make sure it is awarded to you in
    the worker's contract.



    Charlie Self
    "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 5, 2004
    #5
  6. mutt

    Ron Bean Guest

    "mutt" <> writes:

    >um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    >potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    >copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable consideration
    >is it not?


    Not usually, but...

    Contrary to what you might hear, there *are* photographers who
    work that way. But you have to agree to it in advance (ie, read
    the fine print).

    There are a few photographers who claim that it's not worth their
    time to chase fees on old images because they can make more money
    taking new ones. Others actively market their "backlist" and do
    make money off it.

    Some want to retain all rights "just in case", and in some cases
    it's negotiable.

    In the publishing world, there are books that can't be re-issued
    because the copyright owner can't be located. If you do retain
    the rights to your images, be sure to leave a forwarding address...
     
    Ron Bean, Apr 5, 2004
    #6
  7. mutt

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "mutt" <> wrote in message
    news:Z4hcc.2061$...
    > um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    > potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    > copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable

    consideration
    > is it not?


    It is not. Copyright resides in the independent contractor, absent a
    written agreement to the contrary.


    >
    >
    > from the Canadian Government copyright information page:
    > http://strategis.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#section04


    Oh, I can't speak for Canadian law.

    >
    > Generally, if you are the creator of the work, you own the copyright.
    > However, if you create a work in the course of employment, the copyright
    > belongs to your employer unless there is an agreement to the contrary.


    Right, but US law distinguishes between an employee and an independent
    contractor. If you pay a photographer to do a portrait, and he uses his own
    equipment and excercises his own professional judgment as to how to produce
    the photograph, he is an independent contractor and own the copyright in the
    portrait -- all you've bought is a legal copy which is subject to first use
    doctrine.

    > Similarly, if a person commissions a photograph, portrait, engraving, or
    > print, the person ordering the work for valuable consideration is the

    first
    > owner of copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary.


    That's not the law in the US.

    > The
    > consideration must actually be paid for the copyright to belong to the
    > person commissioning the photograph, portrait, engraving, or print. Also,
    > you may legally transfer your rights to someone else, in which case, that
    > person owns the copyright.
    >
    > So, just to complicate things that mean if i hired an artist or
    > photographer to go and create a set of landscapes for example at their
    > normal per diem rate + expences I should own those copyrights (and could
    > make a case for the negitive films), as opposed to purchasing a ready made
    > print at a retail galery or flea market in that case the creator of the
    > image would retain the copyright.
    > just wondering
    >
    >
     
    PTRAVEL, Apr 5, 2004
    #7
  8. mutt

    dj_nme Guest

    Charlie Self wrote:
    >
    > mutt asks:
    >
    > >um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    > >potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    > >copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable consideration
    > >is it not?

    >
    > No. Not in the U.S. Not unless it is specifically stated. Copyrights belong to
    > the creators of the work unless written changes are provided. I owuldn't count
    > on it elsewhere. If you want the copyright, make sure it is awarded to you in
    > the worker's contract.


    In places that operate under (British) common law (that is all the
    countries of the Commonwealth) it is the exact opposite.
    Unless expliciticly stated in the contract, the employer (by whatever
    means) is the copyright owner.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 6, 2004
    #8
  9. mutt

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "dj_nme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Charlie Self wrote:
    > >
    > > mutt asks:
    > >
    > > >um if you contract for or commision a work, image or images, ie: a
    > > >potrtait for "good and valuable consideration" ie: you pay for it the
    > > >copyright is transfered to whomever paid the good and valuable

    consideration
    > > >is it not?

    > >
    > > No. Not in the U.S. Not unless it is specifically stated. Copyrights

    belong to
    > > the creators of the work unless written changes are provided. I owuldn't

    count
    > > on it elsewhere. If you want the copyright, make sure it is awarded to

    you in
    > > the worker's contract.

    >
    > In places that operate under (British) common law (that is all the
    > countries of the Commonwealth) it is the exact opposite.
    > Unless expliciticly stated in the contract, the employer (by whatever
    > means) is the copyright owner.


    It's the same in the US -- the OP got it wrong. Employees expressive works
    belong to the employer. Ownership of works created by independent
    contractors who, by definition, are not employees, belong to the independent
    contractor.
     
    PTRAVEL, Apr 6, 2004
    #9
  10. mutt

    Mxsmanic Guest

    dj_nme writes:

    > Unless expliciticly stated in the contract, the employer (by whatever
    > means) is the copyright owner.


    The employer, or the client? Two very different concepts.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 6, 2004
    #10
  11. mutt

    dj_nme Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > dj_nme writes:
    >
    > > Unless expliciticly stated in the contract, the employer (by whatever
    > > means) is the copyright owner.

    >
    > The employer, or the client? Two very different concepts.


    Not here.
    The employer is the person (or organisation) that is paying for the
    photos to be taken.
    The only time a photographer would retain copyright over a photograph is
    if they took it without being paid to do so.

    Two examples:
    1) I pay you take a photograph, I then own the photograph and all the
    rights to reproduce (or doing anything I like with) it.
    2) You take a photograph and then sell me copy. You retain your right to
    reproduce (or doing anything you like) with it.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 6, 2004
    #11
  12. mutt

    Mxsmanic Guest

    dj_nme writes:

    > Not here.


    Which is where?

    > The employer is the person (or organisation) that is paying for the
    > photos to be taken.


    You must live in an unusual jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions
    distinguish sharply between employees and independent contractors.
    Photographers are almost always in the latter category.

    > The only time a photographer would retain copyright over a photograph is
    > if they took it without being paid to do so.


    Where are you?

    > 1) I pay you take a photograph, I then own the photograph and all the
    > rights to reproduce (or doing anything I like with) it.


    I take it that there are very few artists or writers where you live.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 6, 2004
    #12
  13. mutt

    Guest

    "PTRAVEL" <> wrote:

    > It is not. Copyright resides in the independent contractor, absent a
    > written agreement to the contrary.


    Strange that the US Copyright Act mentions nothing about an
    "independent contractor" in its definitions:

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

    > Oh, I can't speak for Canadian law.


    You apparently can't speak much for US law either...

    > Right, but US law distinguishes between an employee and an independent
    > contractor.


    Feel free to point out where this "distinction" is made. Employee's
    are mentioned, but none of these "contractors" are written into Holy
    Writ. It looks like (according to the definiton of "work for hire")
    that indepdenence or even contractorship have no particular
    signifigance. The basic 'the creator owns the copyright' default
    applies to _everyone_, not just the sacred contractors.

    Sometimes, in fact, any such distinction (if made) is irrelevant.
    Take the motion picture case: the camera dude may own the camera, the
    lights, all the rigging, the trucks that brought it to the set, paid
    for all of the electrical power, the gas, the food for everyone, the
    film processing -- the "whole schmeer" -- yet it looks like no matter
    how "independent" this person may believe he is, despite any claims
    about being a honoured "contractor", the US legal default no longer
    applies to him: his is but a mere "work for hire".

    This camera guy might as well be an employee. In fact, I would expect
    that most of them are, given the law.

    > If you pay a photographer to do a portrait, and he uses his own
    > equipment and excercises his own professional judgment as to how to produce
    > the photograph, he is an independent contractor and own the copyright in the
    > portrait -- all you've bought is a legal copy which is subject to first use
    > doctrine.


    Personally, I think we should follow the lead of the motion picture
    people and not procure the services of such a photographer. Cool how
    the MPAA (or whoever) managed to get this sort of triviality written
    into law, eh? No doubt there is some interesting history here --
    perhaps someone managed to break a few contracts in court, or maybe
    the MPAA forgot to put this sort of thing into their contracts, or
    some other horrible 'screwup', so some dinero had to be sent to
    Congress to "fix" the problem.

    > > Similarly, if a person commissions a photograph, portrait, engraving, or
    > > print, the person ordering the work for valuable consideration is the

    > first
    > > owner of copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

    >
    > That's not the law in the US.


    But it looks like it is the law in Canada. When can they expect the
    cruise missiles to arrive?
     
    , Apr 6, 2004
    #13
  14. mutt

    Skip M Guest

    Not true in the US. If I work for a bureau, then, yes, the bureau owns the
    copyright. If I am being paid to photograph by a client, then no. That is
    the confusing thing about the term "Works for hire." In this case, it
    applies only to an employer, not a client, legally different entities.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "dj_nme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    > >
    > > dj_nme writes:
    > >
    > > > Unless expliciticly stated in the contract, the employer (by whatever
    > > > means) is the copyright owner.

    > >
    > > The employer, or the client? Two very different concepts.

    >
    > Not here.
    > The employer is the person (or organisation) that is paying for the
    > photos to be taken.
    > The only time a photographer would retain copyright over a photograph is
    > if they took it without being paid to do so.
    >
    > Two examples:
    > 1) I pay you take a photograph, I then own the photograph and all the
    > rights to reproduce (or doing anything I like with) it.
    > 2) You take a photograph and then sell me copy. You retain your right to
    > reproduce (or doing anything you like) with it.
     
    Skip M, Apr 7, 2004
    #14
  15. mutt

    Skip M Guest

    I had a book called "The Law (in plain language) for the Photographer."
    I've lost my copy somewhere, and the new one sits at Barnes and Noble
    waiting for me to pick it up. In that book, the author explains the
    difference and distinction between employee and independent contractor.
    Since I don't have the copy in front of me, I can't quote the difference,
    but, believe me, there is one.
    BTW, if anyone on this group and in the United States, plans on doing
    anything photographically that entails any legal action, be it copyright,
    model release or works for hire, this book in indispensable. You need it on
    your bookshelf, NOW!

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Apr 7, 2004
    #15
  16. mutt

    Mxsmanic Guest

    writes:

    > Strange that the US Copyright Act mentions nothing about an
    > "independent contractor" in its definitions:


    All people producing copyrightable works are independent by default, so
    it's not necessary to explicitly identify them as such.

    Most laws don't mention anything about the persons to whom they apply
    being over the age of majority, either, but that is implicit, so it need
    not be stated in every single law.

    > You apparently can't speak much for US law either...


    Everything he has said is correct for US law, as far as I can see.

    > Feel free to point out where this "distinction" is made.


    Sure: 17 USC 101, 17 USC 201 (a) and (b). Under this code, anything
    that isn't work for hire belongs to the person creating it, and work for
    hire is defined as

    "(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
    employment; or

    "(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution
    to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual
    work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an
    instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an
    atlas, IF THE PARTIES EXPRESSLY AGREE IN A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY
    THEM THAT THE WORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED A WORK MADE FOR HIRE. [...]"

    [Emphasis mine.]

    > The basic 'the creator owns the copyright' default
    > applies to _everyone_, not just the sacred contractors.


    Correct. But everyone who isn't an employee is a contractor, if he
    provides goods or services to someone else.

    > Sometimes, in fact, any such distinction (if made) is irrelevant.
    > Take the motion picture case: the camera dude may own the camera, the
    > lights, all the rigging, the trucks that brought it to the set, paid
    > for all of the electrical power, the gas, the food for everyone, the
    > film processing -- the "whole schmeer" -- yet it looks like no matter
    > how "independent" this person may believe he is, despite any claims
    > about being a honoured "contractor", the US legal default no longer
    > applies to him: his is but a mere "work for hire".


    Only if he agrees to that in writing. However, people producing motion
    pictures are often salaried employees, and producing the movie is within
    the scope of their job responsibilities, so they relinquish their
    copyright to their employer by that fact.

    > This camera guy might as well be an employee. In fact, I would expect
    > that most of them are, given the law.


    Not given the law, which you've misinterpreted, but in fact most are
    hired as salaried employees, thus compelling them to relinquish their
    copyrights, since they are hired specifically to produce copyrighted
    works.

    > Personally, I think we should follow the lead of the motion picture
    > people and not procure the services of such a photographer.


    Given the problems the motion-picture industry is having, I don't
    consider them a good example to follow.

    FWIW, photographers who take pictures on movie sets are usually salaried
    employees who thus relinquish their copyrights as part of their job, or
    contractors who specifically identify their photos as work for hire in
    writing.

    > Cool how the MPAA (or whoever) managed to get this sort of triviality written
    > into law, eh?


    It didn't. Motion-picture companies hire their crews as salaried
    employees, which eliminates the problem of copyrights, since anyone who
    is a salaried employee tasked with producing the film relinquishes his
    copyright to the production company. Even the talent (actors and
    actresses) is hired in this way.

    > No doubt there is some interesting history here --
    > perhaps someone managed to break a few contracts in court, or maybe
    > the MPAA forgot to put this sort of thing into their contracts, or
    > some other horrible 'screwup', so some dinero had to be sent to
    > Congress to "fix" the problem.


    Or maybe someone has no clue as to what the law really says or how it
    works.

    > But it looks like it is the law in Canada. When can they expect the
    > cruise missiles to arrive?


    Cruise missiles are too expensive to waste on Canada.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 7, 2004
    #16
  17. mutt

    Charlie Self Guest

    Skip M. writes:

    >I had a book called "The Law (in plain language) for the Photographer."
    >I've lost my copy somewhere, and the new one sits at Barnes and Noble
    >waiting for me to pick it up. In that book, the author explains the
    >difference and distinction between employee and independent contractor.
    >Since I don't have the copy in front of me, I can't quote the difference,
    >but, believe me, there is one.


    As an independent contractor, I know the difference. It usually starts with
    office space, and goes on from there, but there are many variables. Basically,
    I work for myself and am not paid a salary or benefits thus everything I
    create, failing a written contract to the contrary, belongs to me, including
    copyrights.

    >BTW, if anyone on this group and in the United States, plans on doing
    >anything photographically that entails any legal action, be it copyright,
    >model release or works for hire, this book in indispensable. You need it on
    >your bookshelf, NOW!


    I don't start out with the idea that legal action might result. But the book
    sounds like a good one. We're prepping for a move, but I'll note it for after
    the move.

    Charlie Self
    "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 7, 2004
    #17
  18. mutt

    Skip M Guest

    Maybe "legal action" was the wrong term, but anything that has a legal
    reference to it.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "Charlie Self" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skip M. writes:
    >
    > >I had a book called "The Law (in plain language) for the Photographer."
    > >I've lost my copy somewhere, and the new one sits at Barnes and Noble
    > >waiting for me to pick it up. In that book, the author explains the
    > >difference and distinction between employee and independent contractor.
    > >Since I don't have the copy in front of me, I can't quote the difference,
    > >but, believe me, there is one.

    >
    > As an independent contractor, I know the difference. It usually starts

    with
    > office space, and goes on from there, but there are many variables.

    Basically,
    > I work for myself and am not paid a salary or benefits thus everything I
    > create, failing a written contract to the contrary, belongs to me,

    including
    > copyrights.
    >
    > >BTW, if anyone on this group and in the United States, plans on doing
    > >anything photographically that entails any legal action, be it copyright,
    > >model release or works for hire, this book in indispensable. You need it

    on
    > >your bookshelf, NOW!

    >
    > I don't start out with the idea that legal action might result. But the

    book
    > sounds like a good one. We're prepping for a move, but I'll note it for

    after
    > the move.
    >
    > Charlie Self
    > "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Skip M, Apr 7, 2004
    #18
  19. mutt

    PTRAVEL Guest

    wrote in message news:<>...
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote:
    >
    > > It is not. Copyright resides in the independent contractor, absent a
    > > written agreement to the contrary.

    >
    > Strange that the US Copyright Act mentions nothing about an
    > "independent contractor" in its definitions:
    >
    > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101


    I'm a licensed US attorney who practices intellectual property law.
    If you don't want to believe me, fine.



    >
    > > Oh, I can't speak for Canadian law.

    >
    > You apparently can't speak much for US law either...


    Paul N. Tauger, Esq.
    California State Bar No. 160552
    Admitted to the California Supreme Court, all four California U.S.
    District Courts, the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal and the
    United States Supreme Court.

    And your credentials are . . .?



    >
    > > Right, but US law distinguishes between an employee and an independent
    > > contractor.

    >
    > Feel free to point out where this "distinction" is made. Employee's
    > are mentioned, but none of these "contractors" are written into Holy
    > Writ. It looks like (according to the definiton of "work for hire")
    > that indepdenence or even contractorship have no particular
    > signifigance. The basic 'the creator owns the copyright' default
    > applies to _everyone_, not just the sacred contractors.


    And you're simply wrong. If you want me to research cites for you,
    you'll have to retain me.


    >
    > Sometimes, in fact, any such distinction (if made) is irrelevant.
    > Take the motion picture case: the camera dude may own the camera, the
    > lights, all the rigging, the trucks that brought it to the set, paid
    > for all of the electrical power, the gas, the food for everyone, the
    > film processing -- the "whole schmeer" -- yet it looks like no matter
    > how "independent" this person may believe he is, despite any claims
    > about being a honoured "contractor", the US legal default no longer
    > applies to him: his is but a mere "work for hire".


    If it's a work for hire, it's because he has a written agreement that
    says that it is.


    >
    > This camera guy might as well be an employee. In fact, I would expect
    > that most of them are, given the law.
    >
    > > If you pay a photographer to do a portrait, and he uses his own
    > > equipment and excercises his own professional judgment as to how to produce
    > > the photograph, he is an independent contractor and own the copyright in the
    > > portrait -- all you've bought is a legal copy which is subject to first use
    > > doctrine.

    >
    > Personally, I think we should follow the lead of the motion picture
    > people and not procure the services of such a photographer. Cool how
    > the MPAA (or whoever) managed to get this sort of triviality written
    > into law, eh?


    The MPAA didn't get it written into law. The law written this way to
    protect employers, i.e. work done by an employee belongs to the
    employer, and to protect true independent contractors.

    > No doubt there is some interesting history here --
    > perhaps someone managed to break a few contracts in court, or maybe
    > the MPAA forgot to put this sort of thing into their contracts, or
    > some other horrible 'screwup', so some dinero had to be sent to
    > Congress to "fix" the problem.


    Though it's certainly worked that way with respect to certain aspects
    of copyright law, e.g. the DMCA and the Disney-sponsored extension of
    copyright term, I don't believe that was the case here.


    >
    > > > Similarly, if a person commissions a photograph, portrait, engraving, or
    > > > print, the person ordering the work for valuable consideration is the

    > first
    > > > owner of copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

    > >
    > > That's not the law in the US.

    >
    > But it looks like it is the law in Canada.


    And, as I said, I don't know the law of Canada.

    > When can they expect the
    > cruise missiles to arrive?
     
    PTRAVEL, Apr 7, 2004
    #19
  20. mutt

    WebKatz Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote in message news:<>...

    >
    > Sure: 17 USC 101, 17 USC 201 (a) and (b). Under this code, anything
    > that isn't work for hire belongs to the person creating it, and work for
    > hire is defined as
    >
    > "(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
    > employment; or
    >
    > "(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution
    > to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual
    > work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an
    > instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an
    > atlas, IF THE PARTIES EXPRESSLY AGREE IN A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY
    > THEM THAT THE WORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED A WORK MADE FOR HIRE. [...]"
    >
    > [Emphasis mine.]
    >
    > > The basic 'the creator owns the copyright' default
    > > applies to _everyone_, not just the sacred contractors.

    >
    > Correct. But everyone who isn't an employee is a contractor, if he
    > provides goods or services to someone else.
    >



    This has been exactly my experience as a contractor. I had been
    consulting to a Fortune 100 company for about a year when all of a
    sudden someone on their massive legal department "discovers" that none
    of the consultants had "expressly agreed in a written instrument" that
    what we were doing was work for hire.

    Man, you should have seen the legal instruments fly. They set up a
    table at the front door and you couldn't come to work without signing
    away your rights.

    Back to what I think the *original* OP's question was – is there any
    software that "locks" a jpeg file so that it can't be
    opened/copied/printed from without some magic word from the copyright
    holder?

    Dave


    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
    Post a follow-up to this message
     
    WebKatz, Apr 7, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Samuel

    Copying Photos @ WalMart

    Samuel, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,488
    Dan J. S.
    Apr 7, 2004
  2. Rod Williams

    Batch copyright mark on photos

    Rod Williams, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,023
    digPhoto
    Apr 20, 2004
  3. Replies:
    234
    Views:
    3,829
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,184
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  5. Evil Scotsman

    Newbie Pixels Vs 8 x 10 photos printed at Walmart

    Evil Scotsman, Jan 5, 2009, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    875
    Evil Scotsman
    Jan 5, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page