iamphil: As I said in my other post, the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) for all intents and purposes, takes away the right of Canadians to make backup copies of their media.
Thank you American corporate lobbyists for bringing a piece of DMCA-like law north of the border!
It's one step forward and about ten steps back.
Is this because you'd need the photographer's permission to make duplicates?
Please clarify. This is interesting.
Stephen_H: Sorry, I find this back to front and probably bad for the photographic industry.
I'm not a photographer, I'm a graphic designer and as such, I commission photographers fairly often. The whole point of commissioning a photograph is for the permanent ownership rights (rather than "renting" them from a stock image company).
If I have to find the photographer in ten year's time for further permission to use my/his photo, I might as well rent a stockpic from Getty images.
That would be theft irrespective of who own the copyrights.
If Nike is using the pic without anyone's permission, why would it matter if they needed the photographer's permission or the charity who commissioned the photo's permission.
As for copying the BMW, patent & trademark laws protect them. Again, you're talking about theft, not who owns the physical car once I've bought it.
Renting a car and keeping it outside of he agreement is breach of contract. If I've "rented" the photo for a specific purpose (ie: I've negotiated a usage contract) and use it beyond this, I'm in breach of contract as well. Copyright is not in dispute here.
I think we're back to a sense of confusion about the difference between copyrights and usage rights. Since I've had no response to my question asking for clarity between them, I assume no-one here actually knows and just makes comments that seem logical, personally favorable, or gather clarifying replies. (I know I have been)
raztec: The analogy with cinematographers is not valid because theirs is only one part of a bigger story and creative enterprise. That includes the director and screen writer and actors etc.
A photographer's work, however, can stand on its own in most respects. It is more akin to the work of a painter or musician.
So it's not "who created the image" now, but rather "who made the greatest creative contribution" in creating the image?
Hmm, that's sticky...
"Your Honour, I present exhibit B which clearly shows my client made a 53% creative contribution to the image in question and not the 37,5% as claimed by the prosecution"
"Ooooh," went the whole jury.
The gallery craned their necks to get a better view while the press frantically posted this latest development on Twitter as breaking news.
The prosecutor shifted uncomfortably in his seat searching for a reason to object bt his motion to exclude this evidence had already been denied.
We all held our breaths recognizing a landmark moment in copyright law.
And now we cut to a quick word from our sponsor (who actually created this whole mess in the first place by commissioning the photographer without having his $1500 per hour lawyer write up a contract to protect himself from litigation.)
It's perfectly valid.
I proposed the example of me, a graphic designer / art director commissioning a photographer. I take care of all the creative stuff and the photographer delivers the final image as per my "vision" under my instructions. (no different to director instructing a cameraman on set)
General opinion seems that the photographer would still own the copyright, unless I've held a gun to his head and negotiated the full rights beforehand.
benross: Copyright of what? Technically, the photo on top of this thread can not be published in Canada (Quebec for sure) without the consent of the person in the middle of the picture. So I don't think this law gives a lot of confidence to photographers anyway!
Interesting. Does this mean photographers now have to take the brunt of "non permission" photos.
Newspapers no longer need the subject's permission to print the pic. As long as they have the photographer's say-so, they get plausible deniability, after all, it's not the newspaper's photo, it's the photographers (even if he's on a salary and doing what he's told).
Enjoy your new found responsibility...
TotallyFred: Can we have authors and copyright owners pay us, citizens, a forced-attendence fee each time their "art" hurt our eyes, ears or intellect ?
Francis Carver: These greedy photographers have finally managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Who is going to be idiotic enough to commission a pro photographer, pay them a fee for taking some pix -- and then have to beg the person who took the photo to sell them a provisional right to use the photo taken?
Photographers must be from a different mold than some other visual artists. For instance, I never yet heard of a cinematographer hired to shoot a $100,000,000 budget movie claim that they actually own the copyright to the finished picture just because they were paid a hefty sum to shoot the film.What's next, I wonder? The sound guy who recorded the dialog on "The Hobbit" will also be having full copyright for the finished movie? And if not, why not?
Ironically, one of the comments made to me further down [by danmar] was exactly that... "take the picture yourself".
Most photographers want more work. Who advises against using themselves as a solution to sticky bit of law?
But you're right. It might be in my own interests to just buy better gear and stop outsourcing to photographers if they're going to hang onto 'my/their/the' commissioned work as their own, but this scenario hurts photographers and waters down their perceived value.
Maybe I'm just confused and need this cleared up...
What is the difference between copyright and usage rights?
I think I'm tripping over the idea of selling unlimited usage rights to my client, yet still retaining the copyrights.
DaveKaiPiper: Stephen_H -
The Photographer did create an image..... You may of created the set up but he took an IMAGE of that set up. This is pretty simple.
It is for you to understand that you should protect what you make and your fault if you let someone photograph it while no protecting that.
I dunno. If you're going to get really technical about "creating the image", then we need to credit the equipment as well. Tell the photographer to leave his gear at home and create the image – if the photographer is really the one creating the image he'd be able to produce the goods.
I'm not saying creativity shouldn't be protected, but sometimes a photographer is just a technician – just like Roland's tiler & plumber in his bathroom makeover.
Stephen_H: Just another thought, if I'm art-directing the photographer, how can the photographer claim to have created the image?
I've conceived the conceptI've chosen the message it needs to conveyI've set it upI've chosen the lighting schemeI've hired a stylist to fine tune everything else
All the photographer is doing is making sure that all my efforts aren't wasted by being technically skilled and proficient in his art.
If I can't to claim to have "created the image", then I'm going to give Nikon more credit for making the image than the photographer who trusted his light meter, followed the manual that came with his camera and pressed the shutter.
Perhaps there needs to be a distinction between commissioned commercial work where the photographer is just doing what he's told to do, and the more creative, self-inspired artistic photographs where the photographer has genuinely created everything in the final content?
I probably would, but the I'd have to rent the gear and the rental company will probably claim a chunk of the copyrights because it was their CCD sensor that actually created the final photograph. All I did was interact with their equipment...
I think you get I'm saying. Often a picture (or any creative product) is a team effort. How can multiple parties retain copyright? In my mind, whoever commissioned the piece owns it.
My client commissions me to commission an art director to commission a photographer to take a pack photo.
Swop this out for:
My client commissions an architect to commission a contractor to commission a bricklayer to build a house... and now the brick layer owns copyright to all the walls of the house because he "created" (or made) them.
(And please people, I'm not reducing photographers to bricklayers, it's just a metaphor, nothing else)
It's interesting you use the word "sell" their images. If I sell something, it's no longer mine. In the same way, if I buy something it's mine.
I don't hear BMW claiming to retain ownership once I've bought one of their cars. In fact, they don't want to know anything about it after I've taken it off their hands.
I can't help feeling that if some form of ownership is retained, then it hasn't been sold, but more leased.
If I commission a photograph for my design, does it mean I'm sub-letting it to my client when I pass the design onto my client?
As for me retaining copyright to my designs, I don't. Once I've designed a logo for a company, it's no longer mine. It completely belongs to my client. I have no say over it at all. They can register a trademark on it and I have no say over the matter.
This is why I find it confusing.
Just another thought, if I'm art-directing the photographer, how can the photographer claim to have created the image?
Sorry, I find this back to front and probably bad for the photographic industry.