No, they are not one of the 9 categories of work for hire.
As I indicated in an earlier post if it is not one of those
limited cases the only way it is work for hire is if you are
on salary as a photographer, or you have signed a work for
hire agreement. Heck, if it is a work for hire situation
they own the negative and original slides as well, so it
would be a moot point to argue.
However, that said, only a fool would not spell this out in
writing. My invoice says: COPYRIGHT: Photographer retains
all rights. LICENSE: (Specific uses spelled out). CREDITS:
All published images will be credited, (c) 2001 Graywolf.
I try to keep the legal stuff as simple as possible 25 years
back I tried to use the ASMP contract. It was enough to
scare most of the potential customers away. I learned that
lesson well.
My release simply says: I (releasee) give (photographer)
permission to use photographs taken by him of me and/or my
property for any legal purpose.
I think the forms should keep me out of court, not let me
win in court. Simple clear statements to or by the people
involved seem to do that. At least no one has ever sued me.
<grin>
--Tom
William Robb wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <
>
> Subject: Re: US Copyright law
>
> > http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q35
> >
> > Always check the horses mouth. <grin>
>
> So then, I suppose the 64 dollar question would be: Is <wedding>
> portrait photography considered a work for hire if someone hires
> the photographer to do the job? <G> In Canada, the consensus in
> the industry seems to be that it is.
> William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
