IPOS Links on Copyright - Essential for Photographers to understand their rights

[babyhee]

Could you provide us to a link to your stock photos and studio location? I'm sure all of us love to have a studio FOC and free photographs to sell as stock as well. Thanks.

i'm sure you will say that. it's only for those iniatative and intelligent chaps who will be able to find it. do your homework. Goods things come to those who spread free source, not begging for stuff like you.

 

[vince123123]

Lol, well you have just proven my point

Cheers and peace out

i'm sure you will say that. it's only for those iniatative and intelligent chaps who will be able to find it. do your homework. Goods things come to those who spread free source, not begging for stuff like you.

 

[babyhee]

Lol, well you have just proven my point

Cheers and peace out

cheers and no bad feeling. glad that you react.

 

[yowch]

he's not hiding, just that it's useless to talk to useless fools like you guys.

Which king died and left you with the power to award the title of USELESS FOOLS to us? Please respect others' opinions, even if you do not share the same beliefs.

My turn to say "cheers".

 

[hwchoy]

come on, this is quite clearly trolling. will the mod do something about it and let us continue with sensible discussions, whether you agree with the legal framework or not.

 

[lashlyn]

Copyright laws are just scams to make money and to create more unnecessary lawsuits. In the end, lawyers and courts are the one who benefits the most from such laws.

You can use my photographs anytime. I will be honored if you did. Do you know you can print one of Ansel Adam's negatives archive at the University of New Mexico for free? You can even sell it. That is the spirit!

Oh, dear..where on earth do you come from??!!! Am sorry to say that you have no intergrity or whatsoever as a photographer.

 

[denizenx]

he's not hiding, just that it's useless to talk to useless fools like you guys.

I think copyright and open source are different things... open source has its own copy"left" which is still a licence to copy.
copyright is when something you know is yours and yet you lose your claims to its origin and ownership beause there are no copyright laws allowing you to assert your claim to it.
notice that you say you freely allow people to use "your" photos. What if one day u find "your" photo being published under someone else's credit?
Without copyright laws you'll have a hard time getting the "yours" back, even if you file suit or possess evidence.
I think we all here are more than happy to share our pictures (unlike assignments done for money) for enjoyment.

 

[tks]

Yup, Open Source does not = No Copyright.

Open Source materials have their own copyright. It is just that the authors of open source products do not insist on collecting royalties or other forms of payment for using their products. Although open source authors allow others to copy, modify and use their products, they frequently do so only if you agree to the terms of their licence. A common term of the open source licence is that you shall not use the product for commercial gain or profit. If you do so, you are in breach of the licence and hence in breach of their copyright, for which the author can take legal action for copyright infringement.

Another point for photographers:

If you are commissioned by someone to take photos for a particular purpose, the copyright belongs to him. But if he uses it for some other purpose without telling you and seeking your permission, you are entitled to stop him from doing so. This is a special "moral right" given to photographers, painters and engravers.

 

[exhibitj]

Yup, Open Source does not = No Copyright.

Open Source materials have their own copyright. It is just that the authors of open source products do not insist on collecting royalties or other forms of payment for using their products. Although open source authors allow others to copy, modify and use their products, they frequently do so only if you agree to the terms of their licence. A common term of the open source licence is that you shall not use the product for commercial gain or profit. If you do so, you are in breach of the licence and hence in breach of their copyright, for which the author can take legal action for copyright infringement.

Another point for photographers:

If you are commissioned by someone to take photos for a particular purpose, the copyright belongs to him. But if he uses it for some other purpose without telling you and seeking your permission, you are entitled to stop him from doing so. This is a special "moral right" given to photographers, painters and engravers.

Agree with tks. Open Source not equals to No Copyright.

Let's just leave this discussion to the fact that the copyright law exists to protect artist/photographers who wish to use it.

And to those who feel that it is unnecessary, respect the rights of others if they choose not to share their work for free.

 

[zoossh]

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

Employment: If the work is created by an employee in the course of his work as an employee, in pursuance of the term of employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

Commissioning: If the painting/portrait/photograph/engraving of a person is commissioned by another party, the commissioning party owns the copyright in the work. For other commissioned works, ownership rests in the commissioned party who created the work although the copyright may be transferred or assigned as established by the contract between the commissioner and commissioned party.

The owner of the copyright may assign his rights to another party or entity. He may assign his rights partially or license his rights in a manner of his choice. The separate rights given under copyright (e.g. right of reproduction) can also be assigned separately from other rights.

in that case, wouldn't the wedding couple have the primary rights to the raw copies of the wedding photographs taken by the official photographs engaged?

 

[zoossh]

If you are commissioned by someone to take photos for a particular purpose, the copyright belongs to him. But if he uses it for some other purpose without telling you and seeking your permission, you are entitled to stop him from doing so.

dun quite understand this. if the copyright goes to the commissioner, what kind of "other purposes" would he need to inform and seek the approval of the photographer who was paid for it?

 

[AhSeng]

Photographer or artist[/B]: If a photographer is engaged to take a photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright.

Well.. i feel that there is something wrong with this exception. Firstly, for an artist to draw a portrait, the artist is paid to do so. And in normal circumstances, the drawing/portrait is owned by the person who commissioned the painting. Reproducing an exact portrait is really difficult and requires hard work / talent and skills with his brush. For a photographer however, reproducing an exact copy of the image is just a simple copy. Not much hard work involved here. That leaves the person who commissioned/engage the services of the photographer at a disadvantage as he paid for the service and yet loses his copyright for his image. I guess something should be fixed here. So long that the photographer is being paid by an amount that the photographer is willing to accept for the job assignment, the copyright should remains with the person who paid for it. Permission should be asked instead by the photographer if he wishes it to be used for his portfolio.

Take an analogy, an advertisment designer, who designed an ad could not claim copyright for his advertisment design. The advertisment is own solely by ad company and not him. He can't use it if he decides to work for another company. However, if he decides to work for another company, and wishes to use his previous design, the new company can negotiate for the use of his work with his previous company.

Thats why.. i can't figure out why there are these 2 exceptions. There should not be any exceptions at all. So long the the photographer is being paid for what he had asked for, he shouldn't claim any copyright at all.

 

[vince123123]

Erm, it applies to photographers too - copyright goes to the commissioner and not the photographer.

Well.. i feel that there is something wrong with this exception. Firstly, for an artist to draw a portrait, the artist is paid to do so. And in normal circumstances, the drawing/portrait is owned by the person who commissioned the painting. Reproducing an exact portrait is really difficult and requires hard work / talent and skills with his brush. For a photographer however, reproducing an exact copy of the image is just a simple copy. Not much hard work involved here. That leaves the person who commissioned/engage the services of the photographer at a disadvantage as he paid for the service and yet loses his copyright for his image. I guess something should be fixed here. So long that the photographer is being paid by an amount that the photographer is willing to accept for the job assignment, the copyright should remains with the person who paid for it. Permission should be asked instead by the photographer if he wishes it to be used for his portfolio.

Take an analogy, an advertisment designer, who designed an ad could not claim copyright for his advertisment design. The advertisment is own solely by ad company and not him. He can't use it if he decides to work for another company. However, if he decides to work for another company, and wishes to use his previous design, the new company can negotiate for the use of his work with his previous company.

Thats why.. i can't figure out why there are these 2 exceptions. There should not be any exceptions at all. So long the the photographer is being paid for what he had asked for, he shouldn't claim any copyright at all.

 

[jessnap]

Hi ,

Am new here and to the photography world...interested to know how and where I can learn this skill......can anyone enlighten me?

 

[zoossh]

Hi ,

Am new here and to the photography world...interested to know how and where I can learn this skill......can anyone enlighten me?

em, you seem to be posting irrelevantly in this thread. well, you can start off asking in a new thread in the newbie subforum about...

1. what DSLR do you want to buy?
2. where to take lessons?

i have a link to a newbie thread on DSLR in my signature, for your reading.

 

[Lady Ice]

Agree with tks. Open Source not equals to No Copyright.

Let's just leave this discussion to the fact that the copyright law exists to protect artist/photographers who wish to use it.

And to those who feel that it is unnecessary, respect the rights of others if they choose not to share their work for free.

Respect exhibitj :thumbsup: - you have great wise words.

Peace and Happy New Year to everyone else

P.S. I find sport is much better for venting frustrations! Being hard on a person in those circumstances is understood as being competitive and accepted. I have a Minolta 70W that someone can smash against the wall!

 

[at0m87]

Firstly i would say that copyright law is necessary to protect the creator. But the law is outdated and is based on olden times. in olden times we cannot photocopy a book, they have to rewrite out word for word. The copyright law needs to keep up to today's context

The copyright law can also be a double edge sword and hinders creativity. imagine if you copyrighted a method or a way of the shooting of stars. that means people have to find other means to take photo of the stars or can't take photo of the stars unless they pay you royalty. or i even heard of someone who had copyrighted taking a time-lapse of the sky from day till night(dunno how true) and you can't do the same thing without getting caught and sued or having to end up paying royalties.

this topic has been debated heavily with no conclusion. with one side, the monopoly like disney, siding the copyright law, and another side the "free" people siding the freedom to create from deviation.

if you guys are keen you can read up this book called "freedom of expression" this author actually tried to be funny and trademark the phrase "freedom of expression" to mock the current copyright law. and who ever wants to use the phase in the same context as he filed the trademark for has to pay royalties. but of course he is not interested in the royalties as he is trying to push for a reform of the copyright law.

 

[wisann]

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

Employment: If the work is created by an employee in the course of his work as an employee, in pursuance of the term of employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

Commissioning: If the painting/portrait/photograph/engraving of a person is commissioned by another party, the commissioning party owns the copyright in the work. For other commissioned works, ownership rests in the commissioned party who created the work although the copyright may be transferred or assigned as established by the contract between the commissioner and commissioned party.

The owner of the copyright may assign his rights to another party or entity. He may assign his rights partially or license his rights in a manner of his choice. The separate rights given under copyright (e.g. right of reproduction) can also be assigned separately from other rights.

Special situations for certain professions:

Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.

Photographer or artist: If a photographer is engaged to take a photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright.

I was browsing around to read about copyright and encountered this.

How does this apply for a wedding photographer? The clients are the owner of the images?

Anyone can help enlighten me here?

 

[sjackal]

I was browsing around to read about copyright and encountered this.

How does this apply for a wedding photographer? The clients are the owner of the images?

Anyone can help enlighten me here?

Yes in Singapore context by default the client owns the copyright unless otherwise agreed. It has been discussed many times.

Weddings; same.

 

[wisann]

Yes in Singapore context by default the client owns the copyright unless otherwise agreed. It has been discussed many times.

Weddings; same.

Stumbled upon this link which said that the photographer is the owner...
Professional Photographers Association (Singapore) - Copyright Issues