pashley at storm.ca
Thu Apr 18 20:21:44 EDT 2002
mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Tom Trottier wrote:
> > In general, agreed, but photos are somewhat special, e.g.
> > - not to be seen as endorsing a product
> > - not ridiculed by photo manipulation
> > - not to have private photographs (ie, taken on private property)
> > published
> > - ?
I think there are more issues than that.
Some photos taken in public might violate the subject's privacy,
e.g. the shapely lasses on a nude beach. I know of one incident
where a photographer didn't stop this when asked, and his Nikon
and lenses wound up in the Mediterranean.
Some photos the subject doesn't like might be legitimate comment.
If some bishop or politician is in a public place, like a nightclub
making an ass of himself, is that news?
Some manipulated images might be legitimate satire.
As I understand it, the photographers' big issue is that the current
act classifies too much of their work as "work for hire", where the
client rather than the photographer owns the copyright.
Rock singer Courtney Love did a wonderful rant about the "pirates"
at major recording lables:
She discusses attempts by some of the music industry to treat
musicians' performances as "work for hire".
I can see some photography being "work for hire". If a newspaper
sends a staff photographer out to do something, methinks its fair
for the paper to own the results. If they send a contractor,
presumably it should depend on the contract, and if they buy
from a freelancer, on the terms of that sale.
My understanding is that under the current act, photographers are
treated differently than reporters in some of those cases. I cannot
see why that should be so.
On the other hand, I think the notion of "work for hire" provides
useful consumer protection in some cases. If Alice and Bob hire a
professional to do their wedding pictures, methinks it would be a
bit much to have the photographer owning copyright on the images,
and A & B not able to put the photos on their web site without
permission. On the other hand, I don't think they should put them
up without credit. I'm not sure if these issues need to be dealt
with in the act, or just the contract.
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/
More information about the Discuss