copyright

StanStan Registered Users Posts: 1,077 Major grins
edited March 14, 2005 in Mind Your Own Business
Youv'e got to feel sorry for her... but money always goes to money
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1524950,00.html

£200,000 ($350,000 us) that's alot of Royalties for snapshot
Stan.smugmug.com

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Stan wrote:
    Youv'e got to feel sorry for her... but money always goes to money
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1524950,00.html

    £200,000 ($350,000 us) that's alot of Royalties for snapshot
    My issue with her gripe is that had she been a commercial photographer, she would never have been able to make the piccie in the first place. She never would have been there.

    I understand market value, etc. But it rather sounds like they handed her a camera and asked her to take a shot.

    I just checked with a lawyer who works with copyright in the US. I gave her this scenario: I ask you to take a shot of me, and I give you my camera. You take the shot, and give me back my camera. Who owns the image?

    She says that to her knowledge, it's an unresolved area in US copright law.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Sign In or Register to comment.