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.
Originally Posted by jnanian
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.