Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,941   Posts: 1,557,540   Online: 1186
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hi 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
    I believe you are talking about licensing of a copyrighted image. Finished photographic works (e.g., positive images ala prints and transparencies) are no longer copyrighted as such, because the technology is and has changed over the years. Images are. These days, image registration over the net makes copyright establishment easier than ever, as I'm sure you're aware. That's obviated snail mail registration packages of facsimiles, actual photographs and transparencies, previously representing image copyright.

    Many licensing contracts are worded cryptically to include transferal of copyright. Photo contests can be egregious in this regard, and is one reason I never take part in them. Once copyright has been transferred, or runs out, that is the end of the story for the creator. You can do whatever you like if you retain copyright, although that may be at odds with moratoriums in any licensing agreements. I further don't believe that your apparent discernment between 'art' and 'commercial' has anything to do with U.S. copyright law.

    FTR, I make no judgements as to who is professional and who is not. I, for one, do not consider myself to be a 'professional', even though my work may say otherwise. The important thing (regarding copyright) is that the USCO does consider work to be professional (if registered), and any attorney consulted to remedy infringement will almost certainly only take a case if he considers you to be professional – because the works are registered.
    Last edited by ROL; 05-14-2014 at 02:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,624
    Images
    1
    +1
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,150
    I tried buying negs once - the photographer of my wedding was going out of business and offered to sell them to us for more money than I wanted to pay... so it never happened. But the interesting thing is that he wanted to retain his copyright and assign all other rights - print, duplicate, destroy, venerate, fold, spindle or mutilate, etc - to me. I think he intended that to include both personal and commercial purposes but can't recall exactly if that wasmentioned. It seems as though, had I bought them, I could do whatever I wanted to do except falsely claim that I was the cerator of the image.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,150
    Quote Originally Posted by ROL View Post
    ... I further don't believe that your apparent discernment between 'art' and 'commercial' has anything to do with U.S. copyright law.
    ...
    I'm sure you are right. I may have introduced that question/issue thinking that it might make a difference in the licensing implications more than the implications on the copyright itself.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    42
    If you wish to register the image, suggest you collect digital images and make a collective singular file with all images combined. This will save you money as you could have 20 or 30 images in one and by registering the lot as a singular work of multiple images you are registering all images.

    Commercial photography has basically 2 work conditions. (1) photographer retains rights (negatives) therefore your client theoretically should return for more prints. Image can not be used by anyone else. (2) "Buyout" client pays extra, maybe double, and receives negatives and all media created. You may have the right to use the imagery to promote your business but that is where it probably ends.

    Possession is 9/10's the law. Unfortunately clients do not always see it that way and feel they can do anything they want with it, and usually do. Problem is if you want them to remain a client do you make a stink about it? Typically I like the buyout. I make more money
    and usually the negatives will get mishandled and become unusable, or lost. Where do you think they will go.

    Any digital image of a print that I put on the web I put a copyright on it. People, especially polliticians love to surf looking for images for campaign flyers, etc. (gotcha) Whether you register now or when the infraction takes place it should not matter. Internet law has a "fair use" clause whereby you can copy the image as long as it is not going to be used for financial benefit, or used to denigrate a person, business, culture, etc. publicly.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,050
    I thought 'fair use' only applies in the academic world.

  7. #27
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,430
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    I tried buying negs once - the photographer of my wedding was going out of business and offered to sell them to us for more money than I wanted to pay... so it never happened. But the interesting thing is that he wanted to retain his copyright and assign all other rights - print, duplicate, destroy, venerate, fold, spindle or mutilate, etc - to me. I think he intended that to include both personal and commercial purposes but can't recall exactly if that wasmentioned. It seems as though, had I bought them, I could do whatever I wanted to do except falsely claim that I was the cerator of the image.
    Too bad it never happened for you... I had a great relationship with my wedding photographer, and I have the negatives to do what I will. Though 6x4.5 won't give me the thrill of Platinum I envisioned that day... it makes an awesome Silver Gelatin print.

  8. #28
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,632
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    ian, brian and agx ..

    if you sold the NEGATIVE ( or singular positive, where no negative existed ) as part of a work of art would you register it ?

    thanks!
    john

    I don't understand this preoccupation with "register copyright". Assuming you were the original creator of the work on that negative(s) and as such copyright is automatically vested in that work in your name from the time it is made. If you decide to sell that copyrighted work rights-inclusive that would be termed Re-assignment of Copyright, literally handing over creator rights to the new owner who is free to use the work as he or she feels. In copyright reassignment procedure, a fee is charged and that fee can be anything from a few hundred to millions — it's your call.


  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,556
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    8
    thanks for all your help !

    i guess i'll cross that bridge when i come to it, and when the item/s in question are sold i'll have a very clear bill of sale &c.
    john

  10. #30
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,464
    Images
    225
    Too lazy to destroy the negative is a lame excuse... It takes more effort to include the negative with the prints to send to the "job/client" than to make a pile and set it on fire or send it through a shredder...

    Why not send the negative as the copywrite registration .... Then they have it and you don't have to deal with it...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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