IP and Copyright

Mar 11, 2007 18:45

Sometimes I despair of people. The bottom line is that if you care about having rights and control over anything original you produce then at least have a basic understanding of the issues.

Gah.

Which reminds me, I must post "Simon's view of Photographic Copyright 101" soon.

photo

Leave a comment

Comments 13

velvet_the_cat March 11 2007, 22:27:08 UTC
I'd be rather interested in your take on photographic copyright - it'd save me some reading for a start!

Reply

kneeshooter March 11 2007, 22:34:35 UTC
Remind me every so often. It will of course be biased towards live music photography, but that'll be based on common uk law principles.

Reply


gaius_octavian March 11 2007, 22:39:28 UTC
1) Always keep hold of your negatives (or RAWs or whatever)
2) Possession is 99.9% of the law.

Reply

kneeshooter March 11 2007, 22:42:28 UTC
I was more thinking of applied copyright - like "Just because you are in the photo does not mean it is yours" "Just because I put it on the web does not mean I give you permission to use it" "Just because you are in the photo does not give you the right to photoshop it, remove the copyright symbol and refuse to acknowledge it was mine" and so on.

Reply

robcee March 12 2007, 08:36:47 UTC
I was taking some photos at a fight last night where the promoter thought they had all rights to all photos taken on the premises...

It is quite scary. Are you referring to motivational posters btw?

Reply

purplewizard March 12 2007, 16:07:40 UTC
Hmmm of course people might say
Just because I'm in costume doesn't give you the right to take a photo of me...

Reply


black_neon9 March 12 2007, 14:28:04 UTC
would be interested in that, ive often wondered, how copyright works in regards to digital manipulation, i.e. would the copyright remain with the photographer?

Reply

kneeshooter March 12 2007, 23:45:50 UTC
I think so. Would have to look it up though...

Reply

nyarbaggytep March 14 2007, 22:46:47 UTC
My recollection is that if you make enough changes (there might even be a specified number) to make the original image different then you are ok. But I have jet lag and it's been a while since I looked it out, so I could have it wrong.

Reply

kneeshooter March 14 2007, 22:48:21 UTC
You're probably right - but what doesn't happen is that you can work on the image without permission. That is a breach of copyright, even if otherwise the final image belongs to the manipulator.

If that makes any sense...

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

kneeshooter March 26 2007, 17:27:55 UTC
Indeed. There is some devil in the detail though, especially with respect to performances which is the focus of my interest.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up