I can understand wanting to retain copyright in just about every situation except wedding and portrait photography.
Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos) >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900 > >On 7/13/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had >gotten > > paid for my services, and I delivered the photos, negs, or digital image > > files to the newlyweds, I wouldn't care less what they did with them >after > > that. It's their wedding, their photos, their life. > > > >When I was in that game, that is exactly what I did. I gave em an >album of proofs, and the negatives and wished them all the best. >The problem is that a lot of photographers want to hold onto residual >rights, and specify in their contracts that they are the first owners >of copyright. >In your country, I believe that the creator of the work is first owner >of copyright unless they specifically sign it away by contract. In my >country, it is exactly the opposite, wedding photography is considered >work for hire, and the person paying for the work is considered first >owner unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. >What the whole thing means is that photo lab clerks are now expected >to be lawyers as well as lab techs, which is a little unfair to both >them and their customers, especially since the penalties for >transgression can be very onerous. > >-- >William Robb > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
