Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Copyright. Who has it now?  (Read 16255 times)

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1905
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2015, 01:13:00 pm »

Yeah, well, I don't do Work-for-hire, did once (for Playboy) but never again...

Centrefold ?   ;D

Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2015, 04:51:16 pm »

Seriously? Not for many times your normal usage rates?

Nope...I have done copyright transfers but always retain certain rights such as for self promotion and portfolio use and print shows. With work-for-hire, you don't have those rights since with WFH you never owned the copyright.

I can understand WFH being needed for full time employees (with benefits), but WFH was not intended to be forced down freelancers throats.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2015, 04:53:56 pm »

Centrefold ?   ;D

Nope, a product shot of brandy for an article illustration. Also note that I didn't actually sign a WFH release, it was stamped on the back of the check that by endorsing the check I agreed to WFH. I was young and needed the money and endorsed the check and said that was the last time I would agree to work-for-hire...
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2015, 04:56:56 pm »

Why not ?
For another example to add to what MarkM said. I can sell an image to ten different people at the same time and in various formats, sizes etc. I can only rent a single room to one person. Very different scenarios. So not comparable in many ways.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2015, 05:00:51 pm »

Nope, a product shot of brandy for an article illustration. Also note that I didn't actually sign a WFH release, it was stamped on the back of the check that by endorsing the check I agreed to WFH. I was young and needed the money and endorsed the check and said that was the last time I would agree to work-for-hire...
I wonder how legally binding that is. Putting terms on the check to be cashed that is. Any contract lawyers in the house?
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2015, 07:04:30 pm »

Nope...I have done copyright transfers but always retain certain rights such as for self promotion and portfolio use and print shows. With work-for-hire, you don't have those rights since with WFH you never owned the copyright.

I can understand WFH being needed for full time employees (with benefits), but WFH was not intended to be forced down freelancers throats.

You can make usage of the photos for self promotion and exhibitions, and other rights as well, a condition of the work-made-for-hire agreement. Best to write the agreement yourself if you are going to do it, but you can also modify something the client provides.

I can see a very limited number of clients needing to own the copyright from the inception of the assignment (perhaps something like a major international ad campaign for a major manufacturer or service provider), in order to exert strict control over the usage and distribution of the photos. However, there should be a very substantial budget in place for the photography that is commensurate with that need.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2015, 07:09:33 pm »

I can see a very limited number of clients needing to own the copyright from the inception of the assignment (perhaps something like a major international ad campaign for a major manufacturer or service provider), in order to exert strict control over the usage and distribution of the photos. However, there should be a very substantial budget in place for the photography that is commensurate with that need.
Some work is valueless outside of what it is commissioned for, advertising work or pack shots for example. Handy for showing what you can do but no one else is likely to buy it. But that sort of work does tend to pay the best rates anyway.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

smahn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 283
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2015, 08:30:28 am »

Centrefold ?   ;D



lol

Jeff, I think he's suggesting perchance you were the subject.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1905
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2015, 10:28:58 am »

Jeff, I think he's suggesting perchance you were the subject.

Well no, I wasn't. That would border on the personal and I don't 'do' personal.
It was a quick quip along the lines of 'Jeff, the Maestro retoucher going to work on the centrefold ... ' [/anglo-saxon humour]

Logged

smahn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 283
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2015, 01:40:51 pm »

Well no, I wasn't. That would border on the personal and I don't 'do' personal.
It was a quick quip along the lines of 'Jeff, the Maestro retoucher going to work on the centrefold ... ' [/anglo-saxon humour]



Sorry to misrepresent you then.

I'm having a hard time letting go of my interpretation though...
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2015, 11:32:03 pm »

If you pull the pics off Instagram, you stand a good chance of getting away clean.

 http://www.brobible.com/life/article/stealing-instagram-photos-selling/
Logged
~ CB

ericbowles

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
    • Bowles Images
Re: Copyright. Who has it now?
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2015, 12:01:38 pm »

Good discussion.

As a photographer that makes money by selling images, I would be quite angry if I hired someone to do specific editing on the image and found they made any commercial use of the image.  Even posting the finished work on their website without permission would be a concern.  Ethically, I think its completely inappropriate regardless of whether there is any legal gray area.

Assuming I had properly copyrighted the image, the edited version - or multiple versions - would normally be covered under the original copyright application regardless of who did the editing.  In the case here, the subject is unchanged and the image looks quite similar.  

Copyright protection has two different types of derivative works.  One covers versions of the same work by the copyright holder (such as a copyright for an image in a book and the image individually), and the other involves creating substantially different artwork that uses another's work for inspiration or as a component of a larger work.

I could see a case for claiming a a Peter Max style representation of the work is truly different - especially if painting software is used.  But cloning is so normal that it does not create a materially different work of art.
Logged
Eric Bowles
Nature Photography
Workshops and Instruction
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up