[politics] Re: [d@DCC] Senate Bill S-9
ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca
Mon Nov 1 09:49:32 EST 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell McOrmond <russell at flora.ca>
Date: Monday, November 1, 2004 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [politics] Re: [d at DCC] Senate Bill S-9
> There are practical considerations (owner of camera vs. person
> who took
> picture in largely amateur setting) that makes photographs
> different than
> a book (borrowing your wordprocessor doesn't have these
This is not the thing that makes photographs different.
The things that makes photographs different -- ALL photographs, no
matter who is behind the shutter, who owns the plastic and metal, or
who owns the film or card -- is that they do NOT, except in very, very,
very rare cases relative to the millions, if not billions of
photographs taken every day, contain authorship and date information
inherent in their physical form; information that will allow a stranger
to the photograph, at some point in the future, to determine (a) if
copyright subsists in that photograph, and (b) if so, who is likely to
own that copyright.
> Beyond these considerations I do not see things the way you do where
> person who commissions a photo is somehow special.
They are "special", because it is they, NOT the photographer, who
provided the impetus, the creative force, for the photograph to be
created in the first place. The photographer did not create the photo
because of his muse, he created it because he was asked, and paid, to
> The argument that the person who commissions/pays for work is the
> impetus for the work is something I have heard before. It was in the
> context of labour rights, and the suggestion that workers should
> have no rights as if it were not for the bosses there would be no
> surprised that some of the more left-leaning folks in this forum
> haven'ttaken you to task on views that could be seen as both anti-
> photographerand anti-labour.
I'm not suggesting taking the photographer's dental plan away. This is
the biggest, reddest herring yet.
> > Go into a Sears photo studio and ask to negotiate. Let us know what
> > happens.
> If you don't like the terms that Sears photo studio offers you,
> then go elsewhere.
There is no elsewhere in general: virtually all commercial studios
operate this way. There is also no elsehwere in particular in many
cases; where I grew up there was a - singular - travelling
photographer. You had no more choice in where to get a school portrait
than you did in where to get your tooth capped.
> Since you don't respect the qualifications of professional
> photographersand believe this is a mechanical operation,
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Professional photographers have qualifications, yes. They use skill to
compose a photograph, yes. It does not follow that they should
automatically be the first owner of copyright in a commissioned
domestic photo, though.
> why don't you just get an
> amateur to take your picture with your own camera? If you don't
> own the copyright or the specific rights you need in a photograph,
> before and after the repeal of 13(2), it will be because you didn't
Before, it will be because of the predatory practice of teh industry;
after, it will be because of their predatory lobbying and the false
logic that if they TAKE 99% of the benefit, we might as well GIVE them
> I'm noticing that the longer we debate this the stronger my opposing
> position grows. I am not convinced that I would be alone in this,
> makingthis an issue where consumer advocates (which I believe you
> are) will be
> burning political points on this issue which are best used elsewhere.
You have never had to work with archival photographs, then.
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca
More information about the Discuss