Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 131415640; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:09:24 -0800
Received: from 206.46.170.143 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003011413120529631 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:12:05 GMT
Received: from BobDial ([67.248.207.141]) by out005.verizon.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP
          id 
          for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:11:21 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Bob Dial" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:44:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
out005.verizon.net from [67.248.207.141] at Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:11:07 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: "Janis Foley" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:40 PM
Subject: Copyright INFRINGEMENT


> So all this talk about Copyright has gotten me thinking again about this
> stuff...
>
> What about when a local photographer here in San Diego - posts one of MY
> images that *I* took at a wedding that WE shot together - he sticks that
in
> HIS website... doesn't he make money off MY photo?  Posting that image
could
> possibly result in booking weddings?  Hmph!
>
> Just a thought - this has been grating on my nerves for two years now...

My slant is that if he paid you to help him with the wedding (in other words
he booked the wedding and got you to also shoot with him) he has the major
interest in rights.  If it is something that was done 50-50 in payoff, he
coud maintain his half was what he put on the website.  You could use
another shot and so claim that.  

The question of image rights seems to boil down to whether you acted as his
agent or not.  I'm personally not aware of any true partnership weddings not
done by actual partners in business but have knowledge of numerous other
weddings booked by one party and shot by a second party.  The rights belong
to the first party, all else being equal, as he hired the second photog to
shoot it for him and the purchasers pay the one who did the hiring.   That
serves to identify who owns image and reprint rights, in my opinion.  

So, did he hire you or did you hire him, whether payoff was 50-50 or
otherwise?

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5