I have no means to register any photograph as there is no register.
Originally Posted by jnanian
What of course puts me in the situation to prove that I'm the creator. (Hardly a problem in times of analog photography.)
(The only register that exists is for pictorial (trade-)marks, at the patent office.)
Concerning your actual question:
Selling commercial photograhy typically involves negotiating about what rights adherent to a photograph to be transferred.
Selling a photograph as work of art typically does not include any further rights.
At least that is the situation here in Germany.
it would be ART ...
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
but, if the negative is sold along as part of the final image/s ... the owner of the artwork
would then be able to reproduce them ( i am guessing, since i am not a lawyer i am in the dark )
so in order for me to say " hey, i own the rights to the negatives ... i made them DON"T MAKE PRINTS FROM THEM " i'd have to register them with the LOC/CO ?
thanks AgX !
As I understand it:
In the US, an image is copyrighted when taken. However, unless the image is registered with the Copyrighted Office (it can be done in bulk), you will be limited to the 'fair use' value of the image in any legal action. This means someone can use your image and only pay you what they would have with your permission. If the image is copyrighted, you qualify for triple damages, making if far less attractive to use your image without your permission.
You may have given up your copyright rights if you have a 'work for hire' agreement with your employer.
hi professor pixel
you are correct ...
but i was thinking about ART, not commercial work that is copyrighted.
i know the copyright office allows artists to copyright 3d and 2d artwork, not just
commerical / non-"for hire" assignment work .. and my questions could probably be distilled down to this:
if someone buys a negative from you as a piece of artwork, do they get usage rights to reproduce that negative transfered to them
at the time of purchase or do the usage rights still belong to the creator?
"do you copyright ( or non- us equiv ) ?"
You do if you're professional: Photo Biz –> Copyrighting
Interesting question. The studio that does the photography for my kids' school pictures will sell a CD to you with the school picture on it. Along with the CD (which in the digital times we live in is like a negative) they include a release granting you rights to reproduce the picture. So I would lean towards the copyright remaining with the photographer/studio, while the rights to reproduce the image may or may not be licensed to the purchaser depending on the terms of sale.
Personally (and I am not a lawyer so this is just my opinion), if I were you, and included the negative in the sale, I would spell out whether or not the rights to reproduce the image are transferred to the purchaser. This makes it clear to both parties exactly what rights, (if any) are being transferred to the purchaser of said image.
I'm not a lawyer either but I think it is important that the rights being assigned, transferred, given, or sold be specified clearly enough that you know what you are assigning, and the recipient knows when he will be violating that agreement.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Practically speaking, the registration seems only useful if you intend to *use* it. The deterrent value of a clear specification of rights, as BrianShaw suggests, is probably at least as good as the deterrent value of registration. So the question is, if you get the rights documented, and you find that the customer has run off and abused your negative anyway, are you going to follow through on it legally?
Originally Posted by ROL
i am a professional, have been since 1986, but i have never sold a negative or 1st-generation image ( or digital file ) as "art"
i have also been selling "art" (whatever that means) that isn't commercial art but sold through galleries &c since around the same time
-- portraits &c and things i called "hybrid" photographs made back in the 1990s which were assemblages and things that existed for only as long
as i enlarged the image and after the SINGLE IMAGE was made the assembled camera made+non camera made negative ( that is the hybrid part )
was removed + disassembled so the print couldn't be made again ... but again, i have never sold a NEGATIVE as part of the artwork ..
just like i have never sold a transparency, just images made from them, and they had limited use, not full use, or full transfer of ownership,
i have also sold full on complete negatives and prints, but i still retain the copyright so i am permitted to reuse print, publish &c the image
thanks for your questions and comments, i think i just answered my own question in answering this post.
i will copyright the negatives and treat them like they are a transparency ... and even thought if/when i sell the work/s
and explicitly explain there are no rights granted &c if i find they did/do i will go after them as i would a commercial client
who uses without permisision ...
You need to stipulate what rights the buyer has at the time of sale. If it's a unique piece of art as opposed to something that can be replicated many times or as a limited edition once you sell it it's no longer yours to exercise any control over.
Originally Posted by jnanian
It's a bit like some of the early 20th C painters who struggled to survive and sold their paintings to live, later seeing them sell on later for very high prices and getting nothing.
So you need to make the highest possible quality copy before you sell it and retain the right to use the copy as you wish, perhaps stipulate the new owners of the image can't use it for commercial purposes. So essentially you want to retain the reproduction rights.