Re: Photographic copyright

Subject: Re: Re: Photographic copyright

Comments:
: As is so often the case in law, the answer is, "It depends." If, for example, the photographer was entirely on his or her own and took a photo of, say, a building or a mountain, then the photographer's copyright would be quite strong. If, however, a person goes to a photographer who, for a fee, takes photos of the person's children, then the copyright probably belongs to the customer under the "work for hire" provisions of the copyright law. Put another way, if I hire you to do something for me, then I and not you own the copyright. Think about a computer programmer who works for IBM. If that programmer is hired to write software, IBM owns the copyright on what the programmer produced as part of the job. As to the question of "downloading" TV shows to the VCR, this was argued before the US Supreme Court about a decade ago in the Sony case. If a person is taping shows to be viewed at a later time, this is called "time shifting" and is permitted. If, however, the person is taping a show and the tape will be sold or otherwise rebroadcast, say, by a local cable access channel, then the copying is infringing. As to the copy shop's policy, your shop might want to consult qualified legal counsel. A blanket refusal may not be a wise business policy. And, for the record, just because the photographer puts a copyright notice on the work does not mean the copyright is valid. Jim Coleman: Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Attorney, The Software Law Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

Do not disclose any details of any copyright or any facts relating to your circumstances. See a lawyer.
Before you post a message you must agree to the Terms of Use.