Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3678
Results 141 to 144 of 144

Thread: No Payment by Pierce Teo Production

  1. #141
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: No Payment by Pierce Teo Production

    There is a difference between having no contract, and having no written contract (ie verbal contract only).

    I believe you have a verbal contract. If you had no contract at all, you can't even demand any money from the person to begin with, nor can the person demand the photos from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jayliberator View Post
    you do reallise that I have no contract right??
    Assuming that there is indeed a contract, but no written contract, a verbal contract (again assuming the same can be proved) may be sufficient for Section 30(5) to operate. Hence, the person commissioning the work would be accorded copyright by operation of law. If Section 30(5) is operative, the photographer does not have copyright.

    Quote Originally Posted by CreaXion View Post
    If I am correct, since there is no contract, the copyright belongs to the photographer. If payment is made to the photographer, the copyright still belongs to the photographer. The company only has the rights to use or sell depending on the verbal agreement which may or may not be valid when there is a case. Inherently, the copyright still belongs to the photographer and since u hold the raw files, u have a case.

    Vince, can I confirm that this is rt.

  2. #142
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,191

    Default Re: No Payment by Pierce Teo Production

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    There is a difference between having no contract, and having no written contract (ie verbal contract only).

    I believe you have a verbal contract. If you had no contract at all, you can't even demand any money from the person to begin with, nor can the person demand the photos from you.



    Assuming that there is indeed a contract, but no written contract, a verbal contract (again assuming the same can be proved) may be sufficient for Section 30(5) to operate. Hence, the person commissioning the work would be accorded copyright by operation of law. If Section 30(5) is operative, the photographer does not have copyright.
    That is assumed that the payment is made to complete the loop cause if payment is not made, the copyright shd still belong to the photographer. Hope I am correct.

  3. #143
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: No Payment by Pierce Teo Production

    Read the previous few posts to understand why it may not be that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by CreaXion View Post
    That is assumed that the payment is made to complete the loop cause if payment is not made, the copyright shd still belong to the photographer. Hope I am correct.

  4. #144
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,510
    Blog Entries
    2

    Exclamation Re: No Payment by Pierce Teo Production

    Pierce has contacted us and requested for the thread to be deleted. As the matter is still unresolved, we are only closing off the thread for now pending a resolution between the threadstarter and Pierce.

    If either party needs to update this thread, please drop me a private message and the thread will be unlocked for updates.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •