On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:33:29 +0100, Arthur Figgis
] wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:33:00 +0000, Keith J Chesworth
wrote:
AIUI that is the sickening part of the copyright law.
The copyright stays with the producer of the works,
Except when it doesn't.
...
Your wedding photos are not yours to copy. By law you have to buy
further copies from the originating photographer. He owns the
copyright and can do what he damn well pleases with it and your
pictures.
That's not true. There is nothing to stop you negiotiating a contract
with the photographer under which you get all the rights to the
photos. It is common in commercial photography, the law does *not* ban
it. Of course some photographers might not wish to agree such a
contract, or would charge more, so you would need to find another one.
http://www.intellectual-property.gov...mmissioned.htm
has some details, and the site is quite good for finding real
information on copyright.
As for demanding that copyright expires very quickly if not used
commercially, I wouldn't like that. A long article on railways which I
wrote was once put on a religious fundamentalist website, in such a
way as could lead people to think that I had contributed to their
website. Pointing out that it was a breach of my rights as author got
it removed (hopefully with minimal risk of me being put under house
arrest...).
I think we are both arguing the same point here.
I don't think I said, or certainly never meant to say that you can't
negotiate more or less what you want and have a contract which sets
out the variations from that which would be the case should no such
contract exist.
However, by and large who, outside of those concerned with such
matters professionally, would think to negotiate or that there are
such matters to consider before sliding that nice picture through the
scanner so that the whole world can have copies of their little sprog.
Keith J Chesworth
www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk