Your points prevailed before the Copyright Act 1988 came into force. The whole document is available for about �12.95 or free on the web.
What many photographers who confuse ownership of film with copyright is that photographers are not selling bits of film but the copyright of the image on the film. You can sell a right of reproduction and not the physical film. As Ian points out this is enshrined in law. You and your client can negotiate whatever you like but the starting point is that the photographer owns the image and always is its creator.
In the digital world this is relevant in thinking about what you are selling and what you are delivering. The film and the image on it belongs to me. The scanned image also belongs to me. I send the image via email to a client which he stores on his hard disk for dropping into a magazine spread. I don't own his hard disk but I do still own the image for which I charge a one time repro fee.
Yours
Bob
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 11:44 am, Steve Bradshaw wrote:
I'm not so sure that this situation isn't slightly more complicated. I work
for a large studio with seven other photographers. The copyright to any work
we produce doesn't belong to us as individuals, but to our employer. This
also applies to any freelance photographers we have working for us.
The important point here is whether this other photographer worked for the
school directly ie did he invoice separately to Nathan, or was he a
"subcontractor" of Nathan's, ie did Nathan invoice for the whole job and
then pay the other photographer himself. If the second was the case then
Nathan owns the copyright to all the images. At least that's the way I
understand the law to apply.
Steve
Also meant to add:
who purchased the film? Again if the other photgrapher was working as a
freelance to Nathan and used film purchased by Nathan, then Nathan owns the
negs.
Steve
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
