RunRyder RC
 6  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 2620 views TOPIC CLOSED
HomeAircraftHelicopterAerial Photography and Video › commercial vs personal photo licensing
11-02-2004 03:26 AM  13 years agoPost 21
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well, let's see, since I stated previously in this thread that I've had my own business for over 23 years, you can figure it out.

And you?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-02-2004 06:36 AM  13 years agoPost 22
snjmkeating

rrNovice

Port Orchard, WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If we can get back to the original post and question,

Danno,

Yes, basically it is at the discretion of the photographer, or really at the discretion of the market, the free market. There really is no official definition. To me, hanging an image of a car dealership in his office, if I had to put a label to it, would be personal use. But that's just me.

MPA,

As gpyros stated, US federal copyright is automatically and immediately secured by the creator of the work at the time of creation, whether commissioned or not, it doesn't matter. Those rights, exclusive or non-exclusive, can be partially or fully transferred,. But it has to be done in writing.

"work for hire" is work by an employee in the scope of work for an employer.

http://www.copyright.gov states this very clearly, (actually surprising for a government agency, in my opinion)

I have no idea how your laws are written in Australia, however there is no "international copyright" that automatically protects your copyright throughout the world. Each country has its own copyright laws.

Now in your Coca-Cola Pepsi example, if you are commissioned to do a shoot for Coca-Cola, I'm pretty sure they will want to negotiate exclusive unlimited rights, possibly even transfer of copyright. But......if they didn't, then yes you could sell those images to Pepsi.

It's all pretty simple, it seems to be made more complicated than it really is.

Hope this helps.

Steve

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-02-2004 03:25 PM  13 years agoPost 23
fitenfyr

rrProfessor

Port Orchard, Washington

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

From a Professional....
Now you guys see why I work with this guy.

See ya later Steve.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-02-2004 08:38 PM  13 years agoPost 24
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

US federal copyright is automatically and immediately secured by the creator of the work at the time of creation, whether commissioned or not, it doesn't matter. Those rights, exclusive or non-exclusive, can be partially or fully transferred,. But it has to be done in writing.
You are stating here that you can assume you have all rights in commisioned work without a written agreement stating that you retain those rights.

If you have no written agreement with Coca Cola stating you will retain the rights to commissioned work, and you assume you do have them autotmaically as you stated above, and resell those images, you might end up in court opposing Cocal Cola, you will loose against them.
That is the reality of it.
You are relying in legal fantasy otherwise.
Good luck, youll need it.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-02-2004 08:41 PM  13 years agoPost 25
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well, let's see, since I stated previously in this thread that I've had my own business for over 23 years, you can figure it out.
That questions too hard for a simple answer without puffing out your little chest.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-02-2004 09:44 PM  13 years agoPost 26
snjmkeating

rrNovice

Port Orchard, WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You are stating here that you can assume you have all rights in commisioned work without a written agreement stating that you retain those rights.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just letting you know how the US Federal Copyright law reads. If you care to take the time to read it for yourself, here is where it is...

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

Since we are here in a legal fantasyland, Coca-Cola is well aware of how copyright law is structured, I'm looking at a can right now and it states....

(C)2004 The Coca-Cola Company.

For them not to have some agreement about who will retain those rights and for how long, is 1 in a ??????? (you can fill in the blank).

Hope all have a great day.

Steve

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-03-2004 12:06 AM  13 years agoPost 27
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You can take those right and stick them to your forehead and stand up in court if you think they will help to exonerate you from the responsibility of ensuring all those you provide commisioned works for are informed you are retaining all rights, in_writing.

Your view is to simply read your rights under the act and assume all will fall before you and not argue the contrary in court, but they do and they do it in most cases with conserably large legal resources than you have.

The mere fact agreements are drawn up is obvious recognition of the fact they only need to be created becuase those laws you cited have been overidden in the past, many many times.

Simply stating your rights in law will protect you and allow you to assume you need not have it in writing is foolish.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-03-2004 06:52 PM  13 years agoPost 28
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sorry, MPA, but but the courts will uphold the law. What you are describing won't even get to court. Sure, lawyers can try to make your life difficult, but they can't change the law, either.

Copyright law in this area is clearly shown in earlier posts - and describes what is required to have in writing, and that does not include what you are describing.

Ignorance of the law is not a valid reason for taking someone to court anywhere.

Greg

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 02:32 AM  13 years agoPost 29
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Instead of just talk, here is a real clause from an actual licensing contract to give your clients the right to use your work for their own purposes:
In consideration of the Client’s desire to use the Work for his own sales and marketing purposes, Photographer hereby grants and assigns to Client the right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format.
If you so desire, you may add the following sentence, although it is not required and considered true even if you do not:
Copyright of the Work remains in Photographer’s name, and the Photographer reserves all other rights.
Hope this helps!

Greg

Maxi-Joker helicam
Joker-CX helicam
Graupner Jet Ranger (elec)
Raptor-50
Logo-10
9CH

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 07:18 AM  13 years agoPost 30
CKY

rrVeteran

Sunshine Coast, BC, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Its done all the time?? but even taking a picture of a picture and then having it reprinted is not legal, especially if Benjamin Franklin happens to be on one side.
Possession is not really ownership unless the cops break down your door and grab your computer with all the pictures of kiddie porn. Come to think of it, in that case mere possession is more the issue.

Anyways, if you took you own it, unless you were expressly asked to sell it and all rights to it. In which case you should have made more than $150.00.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 08:32 AM  13 years agoPost 31
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sorry, MPA, but but the courts will uphold the law. What you are describing won't even get to court. Sure, lawyers can try to make your life difficult, but they can't change the law, either.
That is blinkered ignorance of the realities of the legal system.

If you where even half right there would be no argument presented in court ever as the law would be read only one way.
According to your flawed logic, the law would be interpreted only the way you view it and there would be no avenue of argument or any basis for plaintiffs arguments to exist.
If you where even remotely right it would assume all court cases relating to torts would not exist.
YET
The courts are FULL every working day of the week with plaintiffs and defendants all arguing their own intrepretations of the law as it is written, just as you do here.

But thats not what this is really about
This is about you sticking your oar in other peoples advice in here wihout anyone asking you to do so.
I dont see the request anywhere for you to give your opinion or suggestions on what you think of my advice, or if you think it is correct or not, you just did it for yourself.

And to make some case you leap on one part of it and then state the bleeding obvious, as if the exclusion of it from what I wrote infers that written agreements do not apply or that you have no rights.
But that is not what I wrote at all, you just read that into it to start an argument.
Why?
Because you got no where last time you did the same childish antic in here and got given then same reply.
Same as last time Greg.
You are not the_authority on advice given in here, nor is anyone else as I see it.

The rubbish you spout about getting an argument from me is just lame, you leap in, start the argument, then complain when you get back what you started.

Of course not passing up the opportunity for some vitriol and taking a cheap shot and what you think might upset me
Re Helicam regulations
But like the rest of your half assed assumptions, you made the wrong assumption about that too.

Argument doesnt bother me greg, if you want it Ill give it to you in spades.
Just dont complain, if you feel like whinging about getting an argument, easy, pull your head in and dont stick it into other peoples advice arguing it to begin with and you wont cop it back, and some.
Its a no brainer to figure out Greg, even for a rocket scientist and astronaut like you.

Ill leave you to argue among "yourself" greg.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 03:58 PM  13 years agoPost 32
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When someone jumps in here with bad advice, others will correct them. That's what this has been about. If you can't handle being corrected, you shouldn't post as if you know what you are talking about.

Steve and I linked to legal web sites, even a link to the US copyright law itself, and then I posted the actual wording from a contract for people to use. Good, helpful advice for people.

The readers will draw their own conclusions as to who knows what they are talking about and can back it up.

Greg

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 06:01 PM  13 years agoPost 33
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When someone jumps in here with bad advice, others will correct them.
Crap
You dont correct anyone, you just criticise because you dellude yourself you have half a shred of common sense.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 06:03 PM  13 years agoPost 34
Angelos

rrKey Veteran

nr Oxford, OX11, UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I have been following the thread quietly and done my own research on the subject. It appears that copyright law is the same for most countries. Here is an interesting document I found: http://www.intellectual-property.go...ommiss_work.htm

-Angelos

Spartan RC R&D

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 06:40 PM  13 years agoPost 35
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thanks, Angelos for the calm, objective post with link.

MPA, if you go back to my original post on this thread, you will see that all I said was:
Here the person creating the images has the copyright unless you specifically give it to the client in a contract in writing.
That was a simple polite statement correcting your post where you said that whoever hires/commissions a photographer automatically owns the copyright.

I made no snide remarks, no name-calling, nothing more than a simple clarification to your original remarks.

Yet you couldn't handle it and tried everything after that from questioning my age and now my common sense.

But you never did come up with anything that contradicts my first post, namely, that you have to spell it out in writing if you want to transfer your copyright to someone else.

Greg

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 06:53 PM  13 years agoPost 36
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Angelos

Thanks for your common sense input..

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 06:59 PM  13 years agoPost 37
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Greg

Youre still floundering and now show to be plain wrong by assuming you always retain the right to all commisioned works created.

You can ignore what I wrote, mis quote me, take anything you like out of context.
You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Try reading the forum rules next time before you try big noting yourself again as you have here.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 07:57 PM  13 years agoPost 38
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

MPA, I'm asking you AGAIN to present your case in a way that is more than your own opinion and show me if I made an error.

You said that anyone hiring you to do a job automatically owns the copyright:
It is generally deemed that a commisioned job, that is one they pay you to go and do for them, they own the rights to the images and you would need their permission to use the images..
And I said that transfer of a copyright has to be in writing:
Here the person creating the images has the copyright unless you specifically give it to the client in a contract in writing.
Instead of just saying I'm wrong, can you please show us somewhere, anywhere, where the simple act of hiring a photographer automatically transfers the copyright to the person doing the hiring without specifically transferring the copyright in writing?

And you get extra points if you can answer without name calling and other personal attacks.

Greg

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 08:41 PM  13 years agoPost 39
MPA

rrElite Veteran

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"You said that anyone hiring you to do a job automatically owns the copyright:"

Crap

You are clutchiing straws now your been proven wrong.
Ive given all the reasons why but you just ignore it and try some other foolish angle.

YOU said it to make something out of nothing and misquote me in some childish attempt to big note yourself.
But it wont hide the fact of what your up to here, and the joke is your wrong anyway..
I know what I wrote and everyone else can read it so your sad act wont work Greg.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
11-04-2004 09:28 PM  13 years agoPost 40
gpyros

rrKey Veteran

On a beach in Mexico

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well, if you think that clutching at straws is quoting directly from your posts, that is your problem. Difficult to misquote you when I copied your exact words into the last post. So now you are saying that I am right in my reading of the law and just misquoting what you said?

I'll also quote this for you:
Who owns copyright if I have paid for someone else to create something?

Unless it is in the commissioning contract that you or your business will own copyright in the work that you have paid for, the first owner of copyright is the person or organisation that was commissioned to create the work.You should note that the creator is under no obligation to agree to transfer copyright to you. You will need to negotiate such a transfer. In order to be legally effective, an agreement about transfer of ownership of copyright has to be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the transferor.
Quoted from here: http://www.intellectual-property.go...omeone_else.htm

No need to continue here, that says it all. Bye for now!

Greg

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 2620 views TOPIC CLOSED
HomeAircraftHelicopterAerial Photography and Video › commercial vs personal photo licensing
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 6  Topic Subscribe

Monday, June 25 - 12:49 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online