"Keith J Chesworth" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:05:38 +0000, Chris Tolley
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:51 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:

You might want to think about your charging policy: will you charge
the same amount of money to take a new photo as you would to use an
exsiting photo that you took for another customer, for instance?

Well, if I was a customer of his, I would expect that if *I* had
specified which photographs should be taken, and had paid for them, a
process known formally as "commissioning", then *I* would own the
copyright on them, so he wouldn't have the right to duplicate them.

AIUI that is the sickening part of the copyright law.

The copyright stays with the producer of the works, all you have
bought is a licence to use for personal usages. If you want to use
commercially then you need to have that agreed, as with any further
change of commercial use.

Your wedding photos are not yours to copy. By law you have to buy
further copies from the originating photographer. He owns the
copyright and can do what he damn well pleases with it and your
pictures.

When my server is up (presently awaiting a new mb) then I have several
photographic web sites.
Because of my job amongst other things - see www.unseenlondon.co.uk as
an example, which is up ATM, a lot of my material is not obtainable
from anywhere else.
The copyright of all material is mine and remains so. As I have a
strong dislike of the draconican laws in this field I have a waiver on
most of the sites allowing a free licence for personal and educational
use along with a further waiver for the geographical site owners where
they were taken and their employees. I only reserve for commercial use
by others and a chance for attributation by the authors of other 3rd
party private or free web sites.

Someone after my own heart: copyright laws should be there to protect
commercial interests and to "assert moral right" to the creation of the
work. If the copyright owner chooses not to exploit the commercial interests
of his work within n years (where n is a small number) he should be deemed
to have waived that right - copies of the work must be always be available
at cost plus a suitable royalty: this would get rid of the copyright
holder's ability to establish a scarcity value by restricting supply. And
once published, a work can never be "un-published" - which goes back to the
scarcity value thing again.

I'd also like to see the copyright laws tidied up so copyright *always*
dates from publication date, not from the date of death of the
author/creator: that would ensure that all works earn royalties for the same
period of time, rather than works produced early in the author's life
earning disproportionately more royalties than those produced just before
his death.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:05:38 +0000, Chris Tolley
Well, if I was a customer of his, I would expect that if *I* had
specified which photographs should be taken, and had paid for them, a
process known formally as "commissioning", then *I* would own the
copyright on them, so he wouldn't have the right to duplicate them.

AIUI that is the sickening part of the copyright law.

You misunderstand. *I* would expect that, and so *I* would make sure
that was the nature of the contract between me and the photographer. If
the photographer would not work to that contract, he would not get my
business.

Your assertion that the rights cannot be assigned to me is incorrect.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598543.html
(66 517 in the middle of a sea of wagons at Basford Hall Yard, 2005)

In message , Arthur Figgis
] writes
A long article on railways which I wrote was once put on a religious
fundamentalist website

We would all *love* to know how that came about and what the possible
relevance was, Arthur! :-))

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:33:00 +0000, Keith J Chesworth
wrote:


AIUI that is the sickening part of the copyright law.

The copyright stays with the producer of the works,

Except when it doesn't.

....
Your wedding photos are not yours to copy. By law you have to buy
further copies from the originating photographer. He owns the
copyright and can do what he damn well pleases with it and your
pictures.

That's not true. There is nothing to stop you negiotiating a contract
with the photographer under which you get all the rights to the
photos. It is common in commercial photography, the law does *not* ban
it. Of course some photographers might not wish to agree such a
contract, or would charge more, so you would need to find another one.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov...mmissioned.htm
has some details, and the site is quite good for finding real
information on copyright.

As for demanding that copyright expires very quickly if not used
commercially, I wouldn't like that. A long article on railways which I
wrote was once put on a religious fundamentalist website, in such a
way as could lead people to think that I had contributed to their
website. Pointing out that it was a breach of my rights as author got
it removed (hopefully with minimal risk of me being put under house
arrest...).

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:08:50 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Arthur Figgis
] writes
A long article on railways which I wrote was once put on a religious
fundamentalist website

We would all *love* to know how that came about and what the possible
relevance was, Arthur! :-))

It was about a country which was in the news... though quite why they
wanted to nick something on defunct trains, I don't know! I'm
currently (munch) eating a bacon butty before (munch) heading to the
pub, so I don't think I'd really get on with Al Qaeda :-)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:33:29 +0100, Arthur Figgis
] wrote:

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:33:00 +0000, Keith J Chesworth
wrote:


AIUI that is the sickening part of the copyright law.

The copyright stays with the producer of the works,

Except when it doesn't.

...
Your wedding photos are not yours to copy. By law you have to buy
further copies from the originating photographer. He owns the
copyright and can do what he damn well pleases with it and your
pictures.

That's not true. There is nothing to stop you negiotiating a contract
with the photographer under which you get all the rights to the
photos. It is common in commercial photography, the law does *not* ban
it. Of course some photographers might not wish to agree such a
contract, or would charge more, so you would need to find another one.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov...mmissioned.htm
has some details, and the site is quite good for finding real
information on copyright.

As for demanding that copyright expires very quickly if not used
commercially, I wouldn't like that. A long article on railways which I
wrote was once put on a religious fundamentalist website, in such a
way as could lead people to think that I had contributed to their
website. Pointing out that it was a breach of my rights as author got
it removed (hopefully with minimal risk of me being put under house
arrest...).

I think we are both arguing the same point here.
I don't think I said, or certainly never meant to say that you can't
negotiate more or less what you want and have a contract which sets
out the variations from that which would be the case should no such
contract exist.

However, by and large who, outside of those concerned with such
matters professionally, would think to negotiate or that there are
such matters to consider before sliding that nice picture through the
scanner so that the whole world can have copies of their little sprog.

Keith J Chesworth
www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk

Right guys,
Well no word from LU yet.
But i should of menchioned this.
If you want the work to be copyrighted to be your own it will cost a
bit more.
Well basicly 20 pounds more.
That's my rate.
I will use my nikon F55 but with better lenses, for each trip.
But hey i havernt heard from the permit office yet, so i dont know what
could happen
James

Keith J Chesworth wrote:

The copyright of all material is mine and remains so. As I have a
strong dislike of the draconican laws in this field I have a waiver on
most of the sites allowing a free licence for personal and educational
use along with a further waiver for the geographical site owners where
they were taken and their employees. I only reserve for commercial use
by others and a chance for attributation by the authors of other 3rd
party private or free web sites.

I would suggest that for these purposes, the Creative Commons system
provides copyright protection licenses for pretty much all
amateur/semipro needs.

You can find out more about it at:
http://creativecommons.org/

We're in the process of building automated CC licensing into Fotopic
galleries for those who'd like it.

BR


jx

--
Joel Rowbottom - joel at fotopic dot net - Head Guy, Fotopic.Net
10M+ photos :: 200+ countries :: Free gallery at http://fotopic.net
Stuck for gifts? Mugs, t-shirts, jewellery: http://shop.fotopic.net
Fotopic V6 launched - loads of new features, easier to use, try it!

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it????

Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera
and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

B2003

Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 29 Mar 2005:


Mrs Redboots wrote:
Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it????

Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera
and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

And waste 90% of the shots.... at least with a digital, you only need to
print out those shots that you actually want, and you can erase the one
where your thumb went over the viewfinder, and the one where someone
made a silly face at the camera, and the one where your hand shook, and
the one where you didn't use flash when you should have, or did use it
when you shouldn't have, or....

And I don't use a dedicated photo printer - my ordinary computer printer
works fine. Plus, if I want to send a photo to someone else, I don't
have to haul out my scanner and waste time scanning - the photos are
already on my computer, just waiting for me to use them!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005