|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: annamalaiannamalai Date: Jun 27, 2008 04:23
On Jun 26, 5:35 pm, krishnananda wrote:
> This is patent nonsense. If you purchase a book do you expect also to
> enjoy the same rights over its copyright as the author? Since you paid
That is not an appropriate analogy. A book is published for the
consumption of the public not just one family. And obviously, I did
not hire the author to write the book. So the situation of the
wedding album is unique. It is not the same as publishing books. In
my opinion the photographer is just a camera man. The whole function
is produced and directed by the family (eg. the ornaments they wear
and the dress they put on, which in turn is actually determined by
their religion and culture), so it is the work of the family, not the
camera man.
Don't be too quick to discard an opinion as non-sense. Copyright is
just a law and it is subject to change. There are people working to
reform the copyright law; to make it more reasonable. I'll contribute
in whatever little way I can.
Thank you for your valuable comments. It really helps to listen and
understand different opinions.
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: tony coopertony cooper Date: Jun 27, 2008 04:39
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:30:20 -0700 (PDT), annamalai
gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 3:03 pm, "dadiOH" invalid.com> wrote:>>> With enough consumer awareness, the practice of holding bride/groom
>>> hostage with the use of copyright law can be thwarted.
>>
>> What does "consumer awareness" have to do with the law? And - trust me on
>> this - picayunish, parsimonious consumers aren't going to get the law
>> changed.
>
>The question of customer awareness comes into picture because my
>brother was not even aware of this issue till he requested a soft-copy
>of the wedding photos so that he can easily share with family and
>friends over the Internet.
Ah, so he signed an agreement without reading the terms. Most
problems in "consumer awareness" stem from this.
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: annamalaiannamalai Date: Jun 27, 2008 04:39
On Jun 26, 8:30 pm, Robert Coe 1776.COM> wrote:
> You (or was it your brother?) signed a contract with the photographer. What
> does the contract say? The courts will probably enforce the contract unless
The one incident that I am referring to (my brother, his wedding and
his photographer) is just an opportunity to discuss the copyright
issues surrounding the wedding album. Solving that particular issue
is perhaps mundane. If you pay more, then the photographer might be
willing to release his rights. But that is not my primary interest in
discussing this issue here.
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Mr. StratMr. Strat Date: Jun 27, 2008 04:56
In article nospam.demon.co.uk>, Nospam
nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There are lots of polite words in the English language that can be used.
Hey, I didn't use the "F" word. Unfortunately, our public education
system in this country has done a pathetic job.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: agletaglet Date: Jun 27, 2008 05:22
> On Jun 26, 8:30 pm, Robert Coe 1776.COM> wrote:
>>> You (or was it your brother?) signed a contract with the photographer.
>> What
>> does the contract say? The courts will probably enforce the contract
>> unless
>
> The one incident that I am referring to (my brother, his wedding and
> his photographer) is just an opportunity to discuss the copyright
> issues surrounding the wedding album. Solving that particular issue
> is perhaps mundane. If you pay more, then the photographer might be
> willing to release his rights. But that is not my primary interest in
> discussing this issue here.
>
> I am more interested in the general idea. When there is no contract
> signed, why should the copyright of the wedding album go to the
> photographer? As I mentioned previously, the family is the main party
> responsible for producing this whole wedding. They spend the money ...
|
| Show full article (2.47Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Chris HChris H Date: Jun 27, 2008 08:26
>On Jun 26, 5:35 pm, krishnananda wrote:
>> This is patent nonsense. If you purchase a book do you expect also to
>> enjoy the same rights over its copyright as the author? Since you paid
>
>That is not an appropriate analogy. A book is published for the
>consumption of the public not just one family.
Yes and you have to buy each copy separately. You can not copy the book
yourself and put it on the web
> And obviously, I did
>not hire the author to write the book
Your brother did.
>. So the situation of the
>wedding album is unique.
Not at all. It is quite common.
>It is not the same as publishing books.
|
| Show full article (2.96Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Chris HChris H Date: Jun 27, 2008 08:30
>.
>
>I am more interested in the general idea. When there is no contract
>signed, why should the copyright of the wedding album go to the
>photographer?
Because he creates the work.
>As I mentioned previously, the family is the main party
>responsible for producing this whole wedding.
But not the pictures.
> They spend the money
>organizing the event. They rent a place to conduct the function, they
>dress the bride/groom all fancy and tradition and according to their
>religion, and they invite guests. They plan the whole thing. In
>other words, the family produces and directs the function.
Irrelevant to the pictures.
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: OfnutsOfnuts Date: Jun 27, 2008 09:58
annamalai wrote:
> In
> my opinion the photographer is just a camera man. The whole function
> is produced and directed by the family (eg. the ornaments they wear
> and the dress they put on, which in turn is actually determined by
> their religion and culture), so it is the work of the family, not the
> camera man.
So why didn't you ask a family kid to do it? After all it's just
pressing a button, no?
And how much did you pay the photographer just to be there and take the
pictures? Would you accept a job paid that much per day?
--
Bertrand
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: OfnutsOfnuts Date: Jun 27, 2008 10:06
Chris H wrote:
> The whole thing hinges around your lack of understanding of basic
> contract and copyright law that the whole world uses.
And lack of understanding of what it takes to take a correct picture, IMHO.
--
Bertrand
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul FurmanPaul Furman Date: Jun 27, 2008 11:24
krishnananda wrote:
> annamalai wrote:
>
>> In my opinion the photographer is just a camera man.
>
> Just because you do not know or understand the law doesn't mean it does
> not apply to you. When you next hire a photographer make sure to
> initiate the contract negotiation...
It is standard practice for photographers to control the 'negatives' and
make all prints unless agreed otherwise. Part of the reason is to
protect the photog's reputation by assuring prints come out as intended.
Perhaps this is changing somewhat with digital compared to the variation
you can get from a film negative. Even with a prepared digital file,
it's possible to print wrong then some day someone sees the crappy print
faded on crappy paper & asks who the photographer was.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
