|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 25th, 2009, 04:18 AM | #16 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
Ownership of copyright and being able to use it "in any way they wanted without your knowledge" are two entirely different things. I might own the copyright to a video I made of your wedding but I would still need to obtain your permission to use your image and likeness for anything I might want to actually do with it. My ownership of the copyright would mean that you couldn't barter clips from it to the wedding dress store for them to use in their advertising in exchange for a free wedding dress but I can't use it in my advertising either without your permission. If you have your wedding photographed, the photographer typically retains ownership and control of the negatives, owning both the copyright to them and retaining their physical custody. Reprint orders are an important part of many photographer's business revenue stream. If the couple owned the copyright, they could bypass the photographer and get their reprints made at the big-box discount store, but since the photographer owns the copyright to the photos, it would be illegal for Costco to reproduce them and undercut him.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
June 25th, 2009, 05:16 AM | #17 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
Quote:
I have done some more Googling & it does appear that there are differences in copyright law even between English-speaking countries with similar legal systems e.g. in Australia (as in Canada) the person who commissions a wedding photographer owns the copyright to those photos unless they have signed a contract explicitly renouncing their ownership & giving it to the photographer Who owns wedding photography copyright?: Ask an Expert - Catapult - ABC Online |
|
June 25th, 2009, 07:13 AM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 795
|
I've forgotten a lot of what I knew and I am not a lawyer but ....
As far as I recall the law in Europe differs from American law in that in Europe the author gets moral rights and author's rights by default ie the rights remain with the artist/creator unless they are signed away. The law in North America slants the power more towards the producer (the videographer in this case), and UK law is somewhere in between. However as the videographer (I hate his word, what's wrong with filmmaker) is both the director and the producer I believe that s/he gets the rights by default. In the absence of any contract between the commissioner and the commissioned party I think that the commissioned party retains the rights ie as the producer/author/creator of the IP. If you do enter into an agreement to licence rights there is nothing to stop you from retaining certain rights and also to break the rights up eg into foreground and background rights eg you could licence rights in the completed film to the commissioning party and retain rights in any material or intellectual property created during the course of the production eg footage, sequel rights, format rights, if applicable.
__________________
http://www.gooderick.com |
June 25th, 2009, 03:16 PM | #19 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
June 25th, 2009, 03:26 PM | #20 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
June 26th, 2009, 07:04 AM | #21 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
Quote:
|
|
June 26th, 2009, 07:09 AM | #22 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,088
|
Quote:
Just because someone (or the law) doesn't agree with your take on things, doesn't make them one who "cheats" their clients. I have a VERY VALID interest in this whole discussion right now that I can't go into because of a client...
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/ |
|
June 26th, 2009, 08:26 AM | #23 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 795
|
Quote:
The same situation would apply for instance to a boat designer, a photographer or a house surveyor. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary they keep the IP and and can exploit it further for their own gain. The producer/creator is adding value because of their talent and expertise and can justifiably expect to benefit from that. Look at it the other way. Taking your example, the person commissioning the training video did it for themselves and have got the value of what they paid for. Why should they be more entitled than the filmmaker/producer etc to any further value if they didn't say so or think about it at the time? The whole of the independent television production sector in the UK, France and many other countries depends upon producers retaining rights in what they produce. If you have the opportunity and don't do this you are living hand-to-mouth all the time and giving away the rewards of your labours to other people.
__________________
http://www.gooderick.com |
|
June 26th, 2009, 10:05 AM | #24 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
The comments made via our Report Post system accurately sum up the problem with this discussion:
This thread is rapidly going downhill into the "I THINK" territory as opposed to offering useful advice. Like so many "legal" threads on here, there's more "noise" than usable "signal"... Closing down for now, unless Paul Tauger or any other attorney specializing in IP cares to respond. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|