Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You know, this is an interesting thread.......Prior to the 70s, photograph ownership was sort of vague. I don't know if even Adams and the others understood what their contracts meant..... It's "fairly" simple now, you own it if you push the button.... unless you sign away that ownership in a "work for hire" agreement. These agreements are warned/fought against by the ASMP, as well as other organizations.....but still, if you don't sign it, it can't affect you....if you do, it "depends"!!! (more damn lawyers on the horizon, just what we need :) However, let me play devil's advocate: How many good "staff photo" jobs have been lost to those of us who still prefer this kind of employment? (I have on, thank God) I can see an employer's opinion. If we hire a staffer, HE owns copyright.....if he signs a contract, then gets a killer shot/story, we may have to fight it in court (always a loss when you bring in the lawyers)------screw the staffers, lets just hire a freelancer! There's so many hungry ones, they'll fight for the job!! I wonder IF Adams/Smith/etc. would even be HIRED by DOI or Life today, with todays copyright/ownership squabbles? The DOI would send one of their drones, Life etc. -- well who knows? I'll gladly take a photo gig like Smith/Eisie had -- AND have lifetime benefits......but it ain't the 90s way........ Luckily, my job isn't "photographer", and I've signed nothing that jeopardizes my "ownership" of my own stuff.....but I wonder....... IF I hit on something valuable, who would bring up the question of "who" paid for the film and "where" it was processed and "who" owns it, yadayadayada.........I've had a scare such as this once before.....because "some" of "all" my photography is done on "company time" and property....... I've traded my "freelance" status for one of a paycheck and (presumed) lifetime benefits for myself and family (I get sick or disabled, the checks continue to come....) I'd have to make AT LEAST twice as much money to "buy" this situation with my "own" money......IF it could be bought at all! Sorry for the rambling, but these questions bounce around occasionally......are salaried university employees ALWAYS employed? When not at work, who owns their stuff? What if they use the office/phone at work? Don't they all?(yes) and what about "instructional" photos, taken on their film? If you haven't signed a contract, do you own the photo? Human resource documents prohibit most of these things.....what about precedent? Who can and who can't? When I asked (gently) a few of these question, all it did was raise blood pressures......NO ONE will touch these questions..... I attract the living hell out of "lawyer" responses on things that I >don't< care about, what about these questions? Marc? Tom? CU, Walt On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, John Hudson wrote: > At 13:03 20:01:99 -0800, "Khoffberg" <khoffberg@email.msn.com> wrote: > > ><snip> > >I'm sorry, in that case my original question still obtains, "Who cares and > ><snip> > > > >Can't help you on that one except to say that there are those who regard > >Moonrise as one of the half-dozen greatest photos of all time and there are > >those who would like to advance the argument that it belongs to the > >taxpayers. That and $16,500 will get you a decent bottle of scotch in > >Canada. > > Is there any opinion on the other five photos. > > jh >