For me it was a long time ago, but the studio contract and my contract the
photographer retained exclusive rights to the negatives. Maybe things have
changed, it is usually buried in the small print...kinda like you do not own
your medical records either, they belong to the doctor and/or hospital.
Jerry in Houston
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 10:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: US Copyright law
http://www.asmp.org/information/guides/copyrightguide.html#006
--Tom
William Robb wrote:
>
> The following was gleaned from the Cornell University website.
> This looks very similar to the Canadian ownership clause. It
> would be intersting to see what minds sharper than mine have to
> say about copyright ownership in the case of a wedding job where
> no formal contract exists to exclude the ownership clause.
> William Robb
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html
> (b) Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire,
> the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is
> considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless
> the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written
> instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in
> the copyright.
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
