Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,417   Posts: 1,596,642   Online: 1265
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,236
    Images
    6

    So who owns the rights to the photos you create

    I think it is stealing through lawyers. But I hate Walmart and I hope they lose. Hope the Walmart will end up as a poster boy for not trying to steal a photographer's or any artist work just because they have powerful lawyers.

    http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/in...gainst-pho.php
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,921
    Good Heavens, Walmart trying to hack the legs from under small people?
    Now there's a nice change of policy for them ...

  3. #3
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,511
    Images
    140
    sounds about right. next, amazon will sue her for including a white background in the photos!
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    I know what I want but I just don't know how to go about gettin' it.-Hendrix

  4. #4
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,236
    Images
    6

    Sort of...

    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    Good Heavens, Walmart trying to hack the legs from under small people?
    Now there's a nice change of policy for them ...
    Walmart not just try to hack the legs off from the little guy, they want to swallow them whole.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  5. #5
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,239
    "So, who owns the rights to the photos you create?"

    Depends where you ask...

    Here in Germany a portrait photographer typically has no copyright. But he owns the negatives.
    (But this easily can get complicated and recent legislature has responded on that.)

  6. #6
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,339
    Images
    34
    It's crap such as this that reaffirms my total disgust for wallyworld and everything it represents. I totally abhor the stores, and refuse to shop in them. Oh yeah, don't even get me started with how I see their business practices in the local community/economy.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  7. #7
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,236
    Images
    6
    I hope I'm not getting off the subject, but it's the high cost of low prices.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jazb24Q2s94

    Walmart is actually subsidized by US citizens. Walmart rarely pays a living wage nor health benefits. So It's workers have to use food stamps and Medicaid for health care. This is all to increase share holder value. Share holders have no stake in the communities they do business in. But I can go on and on.

    But back to the photographer's case, I think it's bullying plain and simple. I don't particularly care what your politics are, but this is a land of laws. The copyright law says that independent contractors owns the rights of the photos. Unless there's an agreement between the studio working under Walmart as work for hire or agreed to a buyout, the studio owns the photos. Isn't that the law?
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  8. #8
    yurisrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York Metro Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    thanks for the link Maine. Mrs. Huff of Bob's Studio of Photography clearly owns the copyright to those photographs/negatives. Hopefully the case is ruled in their favor once in the federal circuit, or, better yet, Walton's suit is dismissed altogether (knock on wood) and they're required to pay all the legal fees.

    also, +1 on your previous post.
    Last edited by yurisrey; 05-19-2014 at 11:56 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: additional comment
    "The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by yurisrey View Post
    thanks for the link Maine. Mrs. Huff of Bob's Studio of Photography clearly owns the copyright to those photographs/negatives.
    Is there really enough information in the linked story to determine that? There aren't a lot of details, but it sounded to me like Walmart is claiming the photos were works-for-hire, while the studio is claiming they were done under contract terms that left the copyright with the studio, and I don't see how we can know which is right without looking at the actual contract terms under which they were made.

    I don't like Walmart either, but I'm pretty sure Arkansas contract law doesn't take that into account. Could we try to, you know, look at the actual content of the case before rushing to judgement?

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,991
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    the huff's might own the copyright or maybe the waltons do.

    i don't really think we are being told the whole story.
    often times stories are skewed one way or the other
    and it is hard to tell ... as ntenny said it might have been
    work for hire and if that is the case ( and the waltons can prove it )
    then the huff's don't own anything but seeing the waltons offered the $2K
    its almost like they know the images aren't owned by them and they
    hope bob's studio doesn't have a clue.

    sounds almost like the auntie annie's cookies recipe urban legend/tommy pamela lee video
    next thing you will see is every negative, print and proof taken will be on
    a ghost server in the malaysia and googlebombed so everyone in the world can/will download the images.
    the only problem is the whole world will be sick of looking at the walton family about 20sconds after
    they are up on the server ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin