[pure-silver] Re: Uneasy Question From Nervous Uncle - now becoming easier...
- From: Lloyd Erlick <lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:14:41 -0500
At 11:20 AM 1/31/2005 , Dave wrote:
...
>If you go down the path of a stamp with dire warnings make sure your use=20
>of the stamp with dire warnings conforms to your copyright law. In=20
>Australia, an easy area to run astray in 'private commission works' -=20
>there the copyright is retained by the commissioner. In order to=20
>transfer the copyright to you (the photographer) the copyright holder=20
>must explicitly transfer their copyright. Stamping a 'private=20
>commissioned' photo '=A9 Uncle Dick' doesn't make it so - it is still '=A9=
=20
>Mother of difficult subject'.
>
>Dave
...
Jan3105 from Lloyd Erlick,
I believe it is the same in Canada. Essentially, the owner of the copyright
is the person who paid for the work. (Things may have changed since I last
paid attention, so if anyone knows the facts of Canadian copyright law
regarding photographs, I'd be interested...).
In the case of portraits, the situation is more complex. If a portrait
subject does not pay for it (I doubt I'm the only portraitist who does lots
of free work), they do not own copyright, but they retain rights to their
own visage. As the portraitist, I own the copyright if they don't pay, but
I don't control use of their face(s) unless I have been given permission.
Furthermore, there is the issue of ownership of the physical negatives.
Whoever pays for the film owns the negs . Again, I am probably not the only
photog who never parts with his negatives. Whether or not I own copyright,
I own the negs, and even the copyright holder must negotiate with me to
have prints made.
An interesting corollary issue is length of copyright. There was a bit of
controversy some years ago when the laws were altered in Canada, and
copyright for photographs was set at (I believe) twenty years, which was
much shorter than for other art forms such as music. I have plenty of
portrait negatives older than twenty years, so who owns those copyrights?
Rights to one's own visage do not lapse, (except in cases where people have
lost their face over twenty years ago?? Horrible legislators to set up
conundrums like this) so I still can't use them for profit.
Really, why become a portraitist?
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@xxxxxxxxxxxx
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--=20
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
