Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 144587625; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:48:56 -0800
Received: from 206.46.170.143 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003011416513126585 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:51:31 GMT
Received: from BobDial ([67.248.207.134]) by out005.verizon.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP
          id 
          for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:50:45 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Bob Dial" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:51:56 -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 [67.248.207.134] at Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:50:44 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: "Janis Foley" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: 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..

> >
> > My slant is that if he paid you to help him with the wedding.. he
booked..
> > The question of image rights seems to boil down to whether you
> > acted as his agent or not.
> >
> > So, did he hire you or did you hire him, whether payoff was 50-50 or
> > otherwise?
>
> Ooh let me clarify... I should have mentioned this...
>
> He was shooting a wedding at a hotel - and I had never shot there before -
> and I wanted to - just for my book - he asked if I wanted to tag along
just
> so I can shoot there and build my book...

Okay, a verbal agreement was implied that you would, in effect, act as an
agent of the hired photographer because only by his authority would you
be taking shots there on this occasion.  Ostensibly, you agreed to help each
other.  It does make the circumstances more involved but the result is the
same.  The amount of payment (whether for the experience you wanted, or
for cash) does not offset the owner/agent relationship, as I see it.

Understand I'm not beating drums for the status quo, but studio employees
do not get to put their names on the portraits they shoot while working
there
unless the owner agrees to it.  Very few in this area do.  The pictures
carry
the studio name, if there is an embossed imprint, and receive the credit
line
if one appears in the newspaper.  In simplicity, the business gets the
rights.

When I was doing staff work for the local paper I got a taste of what gauls
you now.  One example is photos I did for a feature story in LIFE magazine.
I was commissioned in advance of the event to do the work but when it ran
it carried the credit line of the "The Shreveport Times."  Ditto
on pictures
that
ran in TIME magazine and GUN DIGEST, among others.  It's a long standing
custom, Janis.  I have no idea whether it's backed by court precedent or
not,
but it's almost universally applied.

>
> So I came for one purpose, to make portfolio pictures... and when I had
done
> so, I no longer had use for the negs - so I gave them to him to give to
his
> clients... As a gift to the clients... So I was NOT paid by him or anyone
else..

Just my opinion, but I feel a good argument could be made that you were.
You wanted to experience shooting in that particular location, perhaps to
enhance any future jobs you might get to work there.  The reason isn't of
consequence.  You
got what you wished at the time for your participation and that does qualify
as compensation, as I see it.  True, you weren't "hired" to make pictures
but it was
understood that is why you were present.  The gift of those images to the
other
photographer or the people pictured was a voluntary exchange.  I often pay a
small legal amount and supplement it as "other good and valuable
considerations" with copies of the release photographs of a model for use in
their portfolios or whatever.  All rights remain with me and my assigns.  In
the same sense I think
the impression of all present was that you acted as an assistant of sorts to
the
photographer hired and the donation of your pictures seems to be in keeping
with that supposition.  Things like this are why there are lawyers and I
don't know the
application of law that applies here.

> ..... I gave the negs up as a gift... sort of
> as a "thank you for letting me be there at your wedding"...

Very thougtful and generous, as you always are.  I'm sure your clients are
in
love with you AND your work!  

>
> Now what's your vote?  I'm still saying that *I* am the copyright
holder...
> and that he has no right to put MY images on HIS website and make money
off
> of it...

Why not nicely inform the photog of your feeling of "parentage"
of that shot
and
let him know you'd either like to see a credit on it or have him replace it
with a
shot of his own, stating that it sort of gives the impression that you work
for him when in fact you have a valid studio operation of your own.  It's
only fair that it
be recognized as such.  Only if he refuses would I then get into the legal
arena.
Mentally putting myself in his shoes, I'd feel under prevalent circumstances
that my actions were in good faith, but your request would be honored.

BobD

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