Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,257   Online: 741
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Canada laws

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by dxphoto View Post
    Thanks for all the replies.

    Now after reading that girl's story, I am wondering, in either countries, US or Canada, if you take a picture of some stranger, the you put the pic online, then some one used the picture for commercial use or abused the picture and somehow offend the subject in the photo. And the photographer doesn't know all these, will he still be responsible for that abuse?
    Putting a picture online is effectively publishing. The online world is not a sanctuary, the law does not give the Internet special status.

    Someone else takes the picture and use it for whatever purpose is violating the photographer's copyright.

    If the subject is offended by the way the stolen image is used, is the photographer liable? Good question. Assuming the subject had no issue with the original image, they shouldn't hold a grudge against you. I imagine, in US, they will just sue everyone.

  2. #22
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by gr82bart View Post
    It only applies to photography. Photography in Canada is not classified as art but as photography - separate entity all in itself like music and books are separate entities.
    John,

    Well, I am wrong. It applies to everything. Who ever "commissions" the work - photography, painting, music, whatever - owns the copyright.

    http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/c...tect-e.html#10
    http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/index.html

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  3. #23
    Daniel_OB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mississauga, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    420
    Art
    "... Photography in Canada is not classified as art but as photography - separate entity all in itself like music and books are separate entities."

    How about in US? I think it is the same elsewhere.

    If someone pays photographer to do the job he hired the photog, so the photog is employed and so all wright belongs to commissioner.
    This is very different than when you sell the prints. When I make any large scale sale (e.g. wedding) contract should say to who wright on photographs belongs. Prove for ownership can be only one single think: the negative. When photog take the pic it automatically bolongs to (only) him because he is the only one with the source of the photograph. Without the negative, I think no copyright will work, at least at resonable time loss and overall cost.

    www.Leica-R.com
    Last edited by Daniel_OB; 04-02-2007 at 09:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel_OB View Post
    How about in US? I think it is the same elsewhere.
    In the US, the photographer owns the copyright no matter what - unless he 'sells' his copyright away.

    If someone pays photographer to do the job he hired the photog, so the photog is employed and so all wright belongs to commissioner.
    In Canada, that is true.

    This is very different than when you sell the prints. When I make any large scale sale (e.g. wedding) contract should say to who wright on photographs belongs. Prove for ownership can be only one single think: the negative.
    The copyright laws are not well known to most Canadians. Technically, if you commission a photographer to to take portraits of you, for example, you have the right to he negatives. I remember in grade school, I would get the prints and the negatives. Then in Senior public school, the photographer there was smart and he made our parents sign away their copyright and only gave us the prints, but he kept the negatives.

    Because of our proximity to the US, most Canadians assume our copyright laws are identical to the US.

    When photog take the pic it automatically bolongs to (only) him because he is the only one with the source of the photograph. Without the negative, I think no copyright will work, at least at resonable time loss and overall cost.
    Bottom line is you have to know the laws in the country you are working in. In Canada, as a professional photographer, I would have the 'commissioner' sign away their copyright by agreement before taking a single image for them. It's been a long standing debate in Canada amongst artists and photographers.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,801
    Strange...

    In my country who make something he/she is owner of author rights. No matter if author works as employee for other(s), maker of piece is allways owner of all author rights. Owner of actuall piece is employer, but maker of piece is owner of author rights. And author rights are valid in period of 70 years AFTER author's death.

    For example photograher who is hired by someone to make photographs for commissioner, or photograher who is emplyee of magazine or newspapers, photographer is allways owner of author rights. Commissioner or magazine/newpapers are owners of photographs, but photographer is owner of author rights.

    In practice that means next: Commissioner or magazine/newspapers have rights to use photographs for purpose for what they hired photographer, but they can't modify or reselling photographs to third party (unless they arrange that right before with photographer).

    On the other hand photographer can, without asking permission from commissioner or magazine/newspapers he/she works for, to use his/hers photographs for exhibitions, personal advertizing, portfolios, publishing books of his/hers photographs, and every other using of photographs except using which will make damage to previous commissioner or violate previously made agreement between photographer and commissioner.

    Next, author become owner of author rights simply by fact that he/she made something. There is no need to get certificate from some body. Also, author can NOT reject from its right. He/she gets rights automatically and those rights can not be taken away by nobody, and not by author itself. Author can share those rights (give rights to others too) with others, but even in that case author keeps its rights, can not be left without rights. There is no legal way to take authors rights from author, nor author can give up from his/hers rights.

    It is completely different thing that nobody here respect laws about author rights...
    Last edited by haris; 04-02-2007 at 05:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
    No things in life should be left unfinis

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by haris View Post
    Strange...

    In my country who make something he/she is owner of author rights. No matter if author works as employee for other(s), maker of piece is allways owner of all author rights. Owner of actuall piece is employer, but maker of piece is owner of author rights. And author rights are valid in period of 70 years AFTER author's death....
    Dear Haris,

    Are you sure? That is normally the case, yes, but as far as I recall (and it's late, and I have eaten and drunk well) there is a difference in UK law between 'work for hire' (told how and where to shoot) and commissioned work (photographer's discretion).

    Your point about lack of respect for rights is however universal.

    Cheers,

    R.

  7. #27
    paxette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    51
    Roger, as I understand it in the UK and USA moral rights are excluded when it's work for hire. Whereas, in Canada the creator retains moral rights regardless of why the work was created ... unless they've agreed to waive those rights.

  8. #28
    Daniel_OB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mississauga, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    420
    The photo-law around copyright is somehow funny think, and tricky. In Canada it works just around commissioned work, that is, just for negatives that are made as part of commissioned work. Who can prove some specific negative is a part of commissioned work? And what is 100% accurate definition of commissioned work?
    Photog always can say: I gave to the commissioner negatives, and this particular negative is not part of our contract. I sold (or presented if tax is in play) him the photograph separately so it is how come he has a photograph of that negative. If some work is contracted so accurate and leave no room to photographer, just give up, not end of life. Contracts that can run photographer into trouble about ownership of negatives are so rare, next to none, even in Canada.
    By the way, most of commercial commissioned works today (at least in Canada) are done by computer so who care to whom “negatives” belong. Copyright in such medium is so funny think to me (not to say stupid), and I am not sure it exists at all.
    www.Leica-R.com

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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