Photo Editing + Event Rights

[Edwin Francis]

But, there must be some element of material alternation or embellishment which makes the totality of the second work, an original work. This is usually factual

Hi Vince

Just wanted to clarify this point -- do you mean the judgement (whether a work has altered substantially enough to be considered an original work) is subjective i.e. to be determined by a judge, if it goes that far?

Ahpoke, do let us know how it goes.

 

[vince123123]

Without further research, I can't confirm if it is a subjective or objective test, but yes, the judge will be the one who decides if it is altered substantially enough.

Hi Vince

Just wanted to clarify this point -- do you mean the judgement (whether a work has altered substantially enough to be considered an original work) is subjective i.e. to be determined by a judge, if it goes that far?

Ahpoke, do let us know how it goes.

 

[ahpoke]

apparently even after so long, theres no reply =.=

 

[vince123123]

Apparently you didn't read Post #19

apparently even after so long, theres no reply =.=

 

[ahpoke]

i ment from the shop ~.~ email them 1mth le, still no reply, sry if i caused some misunderstanding

 

[vince123123]

No worries, so long as ti was cleared up Perhaps its time you posted their name for us to see; since it is clear they can't be bothered to respond to you.

i ment from the shop ~.~ email them 1mth le, still no reply, sry if i caused some misunderstanding

 

[febarthez]

hmm..

lemme quote you an example..

usually the shops is not likely to do the artworks and brochure design themselves..

chances are that they engage freelance designers or even small scale printers to come out with designs and eventually print.. if this is the case, i doubt they will know if they infringed copyright on the photographs used in the brochure..

perhaps you should ask them for the printer's name.. maybe it might shed some light there..

just a suggestion..

 

[lifeinpolaroid]

I read this thread with interest and learnt quite a bit

I was thinking about image rights..

how about image rights then? if you take the photo casually with a person featured inside that you did not request permission (for example in street photography), does the person in the photo "share" in your copyright?

Oh and also, if multiple parties buy your photos, for example maybe if you shoot some travel photos, then they all own the copyright unless they give you some kind of exclusivity compensation to only sell solely to them or is it that once you sold the photos you can't sell the same photos to other people already?

 

[lifeinpolaroid]

:sweat: actually i read a few threads and found the answer...

found in

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500744 (Joint and Sole Copyrights)

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=546421 (Model Release Agreement)

 

[vince123123]

Singapore laws does not (or at least have yet to) recognise "image rights" or the concept of model releases.

For the second question; it all depends on what you agree with them.

I read this thread with interest and learnt quite a bit

I was thinking about image rights..

how about image rights then? if you take the photo casually with a person featured inside that you did not request permission (for example in street photography), does the person in the photo "share" in your copyright?

Oh and also, if multiple parties buy your photos, for example maybe if you shoot some travel photos, then they all own the copyright unless they give you some kind of exclusivity compensation to only sell solely to them or is it that once you sold the photos you can't sell the same photos to other people already?