Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> When I do a shoot I am the artist in control of that shoot. Most commercial > photographers are able to easily insist on that. It depends on the client, and usually big clients have their own artistic directors. Also, they usually bring a storyboard, with or without an art director. If the client didn't give you the idea/assignment for the shoot in the first place, you wouldn't be doing it. > A makeup artist I usually pick is very important as the choice of model and > other stylists and location. All important contributors; I am the Artist. You say you are 'THE' artist...but who determines that? Where do you draw the line as to 'artist' and 'other'. You are making a judgement call on who is providing 'artistic' talent. > The Mona Lisa did not paint herself. I believe that was long before copyright laws were around. If it was a commissioned piece, or was sold to someone as an exclusive piece, I believe the person footing the bill owned it, and if the artist decided to make another one, he got his hands chopped off. > As the "Artist" the laws of the US and many other countries says the copyright > stays with me. I do understand that is the current interpretation the courts are using. > That is the law and it is a shame you have such a problem with that. I believe the shame is that it is a 'special interest' and an 'entitlement', and as such, should either be for every profession or no profession. > You are the one who is saying otherwise and that is a strange, uncanny and > uncalled for insult to our profession of photography. It is not an insult, you are taking it as one because I am questioning an entitlement that photographers have, and I disagree with. I am asking for some rational justification why it is this way. > The insults here are coming from you, I'd look to my own motives. I'm defending > my profession. You are trying to justify an entitlement that I disagree with, that's all. I believe wholeheartedly in copyright laws, in general, just not this one aspect of them. > You're only kidding youself if you think you are after justice. No one here at least is fooled by this pain in the rear, off-center spirited baloney. I never mentioned 'justice', and I am thoroughly confused where you think I am trying to 'fool' anyone. You are reading things into something that isn't there. I was only interested in hearing the rationale for this entitlement, and it apparently isn't going to happen because it has unfortunately taken such a personal tone. I am sorry some have taken this so personally. That was not my intention, and it's a shame it has taken this course. I have certainly respected your input and opinions on issues, and certainly will in the future. I think it best to just say we disagree on this one.