He said WHAT???

cdonovan

On another forum that I visit, there has been a lot of upset over an article that was found on a website.:fish perhaps you have already seen it, but i thought that I'd like to hear what you folks have to say about it too.

http://cummingsgroup.com/ca/mi/2005/web_43.cfm

About partway down the page it's called :

"Do you really own that Photograph"

gus

How i see it. I am a tradesman..if i get asked to do a job for a customer then i buy the parts..turn up ..do the job with my own tools & then they pay me for it..end of story. I cant go back next week & say that its my creation & until i get paid more etc then they cant use what i fixed. Its a job that we get paid for.

wxwax

On a commercial shoot such as the one described in the column, a contract is typically signed that defines rights. What the writer implies, but doesn't want to say, is that the photographer owns all rights by default, and sells each of those rights individually.

claudermilk

As of now, they have retracted the article. I can't really comment as I never saw the original.

LuckyBob

Google cache to the rescue!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KqmRS24f1ooJ:cummingsgroup.com/ca/mi/2005/web_43.cfm+cummingsgroup.com/ca/mi/2005/web_43.cfm

Scott_Quier

I would have to say that it all depends on the terms of the contract. On points where any contract is silent, with regards to rights, the rights would reside with the photographer.

As the last line of the original article says, "Caveat Emptor".

marlinspike

Ambiguities favor whoever didn't write the contract...silence is I think even worse than ambiguity. So, it might not always side with the photographer.

claudermilk

LuckyBob wrote:

Google cache to the rescue!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KqmRS24f1ooJ:cummingsgroup.com/ca/mi/2005/web_43.cfm+cummingsgroup.com/ca/mi/2005/web_43.cfm

Thanks. Yeah, on the surface that short article can easily ruffle a photographer's feathers. A lot depends on the contract negotiations.

Recheckingthe retraction, they also sadi it's an old article & the corporate attitude has shifted since then. Hmmm...

Scott_Quier

claudermilk wrote:

Thanks. Yeah, on the surface that short article can easily ruffle a photographer's feathers. A lot depends on the contract negotiations.

Recheckingthe retraction, they also sadi it's an old article & the corporate attitude has shifted since then. Hmmm...

Ummmm - I wonder if that's nothing more than PR department propaganda.dunno

claudermilk

Probably. Whatever it is, at least they backed off the original statements.