Another point to note here, copyrights may and will be transfered to a client base on the sales agreement/quotation/invoice. But till full payment is made, the sale is not considered complete ( payment being part of a sale ) and as such, unless other wise stated, the transfer of copyrights is also not complete as the transfer of copyrights, is part of the sale.
In simple term, if you have not paid for it, you don't own it, unless otherwise stated.
I get paid more shooting part time ...... damn, I should find more time to shoot part time
I have been wondering one of the issues myself, whether copyright passes in the absence of payment. There can be two ways to interpret:
1. Copyright passes to the commissioner by operation of law, whether or not payment is made. The lack of payment is a contractual matter which is outside the scope of passing of copyright. Hence the creditor chases the debtor for payment.
2. Copyright does not pass until payment is made.
The key issue in my opinion is whether there is valuable consideration sufficient to allow the copyright to be passed. As long as the contract provides for consideration, it may not matter that the payment (ie consideration) is actually made or not.
Of course, we can also look at it in another way, where we can say that if the commissioner failed to pay up, it is a fundamental breach of contract (note that fundamental breach is not the same as normal breach) and treats the contract to be at an end (there are two ways to deal with fundamental breach), then maybe we can also say that since the contract is ended - copyright does not pass. But ending a contract may not be the same as saying the contract is void?
Seems rather complex :P If I can ask, would you be willing to share the identity of the copyright lawyer you asked (by pm will do - and you can ask him/her for permission first) - I would love to discuss this issue with him separately on a pure academic basis. If this person is in fact known to me, it may even make things easier to find out
Of course, we all know that the moral position is, no money, no goods. But in this case, I'm wondering if it is as simple as that.
let me check with him..as he is Partner...better ask for permission first....courtesy
but he did sms me before...copyright belongs to the person who takes the photo...payments are just purchase of rights to use those photos....
Last edited by Wibblo; 31st October 2008 at 06:32 PM.
Nikon D300s, 50mm, 18-105mm, Sigma 30mm F1.4, Sigma 50-150mm F2.8, Samyang 8mm F3.5
Hmm, the second sentence is very dangerous, because it implies that your contact is telling you that Copyright belongs to a photographer even in the case of commissioned works, and payment merely means a license is granted to use. This is in fact, not what Section 30 says. Of course, it is possible that you misheard/misread him as the subtle differences is not obvious to a lay person.
easiest and least painful way to deal with this issue. Really I think the Copyright Act needs a look at.
guys, all this talk about copyright is confusing me
Nothing wrong with that, but do note that such things are usually substance over form. Ie if you say "I commission you" but in fact the transaction was not as such, saying "I commission you" in a contract doesn't help.
That said, I do believe in your case, you should be using "I commission you" in your contract, as well as the transaction actually being a commissioned work. So its really double protection
you do reallise that I have no contract right??
Vince, can I confirm that this is rt.
i think its more on ur attitude bro...
can sense ur grouchy man..
firstly i think cheese is trying to say tt it does not matter wad mistake u made...mistake is a mistake...not any mistake but a mistake which cannot be made... dont forget... with out the
camera... u got no pics... if u made such a blunder in court... u might not be in favour... u know that right?
I sat on the fence and typed that man...
bro jay dont let anger get the better of u ... once u let tt happen... even if u 99% win... just bcoz of the blunder... u might end up PAYING not getting PAID.. honestly i somewhat agree on wad cheese say... but not the insensitive part with the smilies la... coz if they(other party) wants to extract anything... thn with a letter from their lawers or high court they can extract from CS legally... and if CS got backup... thn u might be in trouble. if the what u typed (that has been deleted) is still in backup or something... and tt is where the part paying and paid might kick in bro
its a war out there..becareful...
good luck in ur legal settlements and all the best!