Just for the record, anytime I've had a photo published, with the exception
of the small newsletter that gets sent to around 250 homes where I live, I
have received and been asked to sign what is essentially a usage agreement
for my work, that clearly states ownership and limitations on usage of the
photograph. I assume that is for the protection of both the publisher and
myself. Using photos in a slideshow at tradeshow is a form of publication.
I know that you know this common practice as does the three you are
referring to.
There was not an unwillingness to provide Pentax Canada with photographs,
Bill. I don't understand 'no questions asked', though. That is not the norm
for this kind of transaction. The norm is to have everything clearly
spelled out. I was willing to submit photographs after corresponding with
Marcos, though I still found it unusual.
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:01:30 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Shell"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I don't know if I'm one of your three, but regardless of whether one makes
a living from photography or not, copyright is important.
I'm not sure if I follow.
Why is copyright an important issue if you are not making commercial gain
from your work?
I don't know of any working pro who disregards the importance of
copyright. It's what enables us to make a living doing photography.
Nor do I, but thats not germaine to the discussion, other than, as noted,
the on list pros seemed a lot more willing to hand over some work, no
questions asked.
William Robb
