What on earth have I done? For Gud's sake? Are you off your medication? You really must keep taking those pills old chap.
Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:14 PM Subject: Re: PROS [WAS:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.] > > > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > > > It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the > > subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of > > filters should it happen again. > > Oh, we know that you will! Why don't you just drop it Doctor. > Everybody else has. > A doctor who keeps tearing the scab off a now-healing wound has some > issues to address himself... > > > Photographers don't usually hand over the negatives after they have > > completed an ordinary job, like taking pictures of a wedding, or making > > studio portraits. They hang on to them and hope more prints will be ordered. > > I'm also willing to bet that if the client demanded the negatives there > > would be immediate disagreement about who owns them. I'm also sure that if > > it got to court, the client would win and get his negatives, unless there > > was some kind of prior agreement. But who would sign an agreement allowing a > > photographer to keep pictures of them? To what end? What possible reason, or > > excuse, can a photographer have for doing this if the matter came up? I'm > > quite sure most people would say no. And perhaps question the photographer's > > intentions. It's silly and in my opinion unethical to try to hold on to > > negatives that belong to someone else. If a client gets a load of prints > > made elsewhere that's too bad. But what a client cannot do is lay claim to > > the pictures. He cannot say he took them and if he does its time for > > litigation. But it can get very complicated. Copyright Law might look quite > > simple on paper, but specialist litigators make vast amounts of money when > > it comes to the application. > > > > When a client pays to have something - say products - photographed its very > > clear that everything to do with them, including the negatives, belong to > > him - not the picture taker. > > > > The copyright of printed matter, novels, biographies and such-like is a > > little more difficult. An author passes the copyright over to the publisher > > as part of a contract - usually. I didn't (don't) but such an agreement has > > to be negotiated. So anyone getting a photo book ready beware. It's best to > > retain the copyright oneself, if at all possible. But Daniel knows more > > about this stuff an I'm sure he'd have more useful comments than these. > > Thanks for your exposition. I for one appreciate it. > > = rest snipped = > > keith whaley > >
