Hey LittleWolf, u don't quite get the link. Perhaps i did not make a very clear enough statement. Although maybe a bit OT, but i do see the need to clear up some of the things.
Ok, let me give another example. Let's say I copy an expensive book on a photocopier. The copy is a true photograph (analog on traditional Xerox machines, or using a "digital scan back" using modern copiers). Does this mean I own the copyright for the copies? Of course not.
There are very clear photocopying rights in S'pore. Goto a lirary photocopy shop and u'll see them. Photocopy and photography are
not the same (unless u tell me that u use the camera to "scan doc" and produce them). Photocopy is definitely not a creative process, i.e. it is "just copying", and therefore subjected to the copyright law. If u have watch the news, you will notice a recent incident in a Taiwan uni student that is involved in this. I shall not elaborate this further. Fo more info, do a google.
The act of "taking" a photo is a technical, not a creative process. However, if you CREATE the subject matter, i.e. by arranging a still life, you can claim artistic ownership. If you just take a photo of a scene that exists without a significant contribution on your part, there must be something very special about how the photo is taken for you to claim anything.
Generally, i agree with that. Subject matter in this case is not the person in the pic, but the compostition, etc etc.
Now, let's say you take a very originally arranged photo of an art object. In this case, you may claim rights to your photo, but not ALL the rights. Since the art object is a non-negligible part of your work, the rights to the photo are usually shared between you and the original artist. Depending on where you are, this could mean that the artist cannot use your photo without your consent, but you also cannot use your photo without his/her consent. "Use" can include any kind of publication, even if free of charge.
To a certain extent, i agree too. Again, this is
very subjective. According the law (if i have not misunderstood it, someone pls correct me if i am wrong), the rights of the photograph belongs to the photographer. But depending on the "things" in the pic, another person can sue the photographer (or whoever publishes it) for something else besides the rights to the photograph. For example, if u take a photo of me :devil: without having any underlying agreement with me, and u sell it for a million bucks, i can request for royalities (not sure if this is the correct legal term, i simply means $) from you and bring this issue to court. If you did not get a cent out of the photographs, and my face looks nice :devil: and the pics are not getting on my nerves, why will i sue u? Pls note that this does not apply if your camera is a spycam in my toilet, which is some other legal issues already. Hope this is clear.
In essence, as long as no one makes noise, no one will be in trouble.
If the "management" is not completely stupid, they will make it part of the contract that you own the rights (or are otherwise authorized to grant them a license) and indemnify them from all further claims. I.e. if there is a dispute, it's not "them" who's in trouble, but you.
Only if they're grossly negligent. If they can show that you agreed to their terms & conditions, and the T&C state that you are liable for all copyright issues, tough luck. And even if the publishers cannot escape the courts, they can just sue you in turn.
maybe i should have make it very clear in my previous post that you should "
read and understand" the contract before you agree to anything. This applies to any other things in life as well. if you cannot even be bothered to "read and understand" before you agree to anything, you are obviously asking for trouble.
I think we are getting a bit too much on the copyright. U might wanna PM me if you think of other examples. I guess the rules are pretty clear: no one makes noise, no one in trouble. In this kinda copyright issues, you need a person to sue u, in order u to be sued.
The TS is asking for photo release issues. Any input on that. I am interested too.