Traps employing a professional.

[tom kane]

When employing a Professional to carry out work for you, you should get an agreement on what work belongs to you and what work belongs to the professional. In my case I employed a photographer to record work and experiments I had carried out on my boats.

Because I had no agreement the records taken belonged to the photographer ( his copyright) and I could not do what I wanted or obtain the originals.
This situation would be really serious regarding a boat design.
The same situation arose when local news media became involved. No control over what was done with the records.

[Petros]

You must not deal with professionals very often. This is normal conditions in photography, or other professionals as well. My work as a consulting engineer involves a lot of liability, so the plans and calculations I do are mine, and under my control at all times, even when paid by my clients to do it. There have been situations where my plans had been altered, or my designs reused in other conditions for which I had no say, yet the client was trying to passing it off as an engineered design. This is fraud. Same would be true if you hire a lawyer to prepare a contract for a certain sales transaction. you can not take the lawyer's work and reuse the same contract for other transactions without a prior agreement with the lawyer. Would you reuse a doctor's prescription for medication to save you from having to see the doctor again?

I do not know what kind of liability a photographer would have with records photos, but it would have been normal to for you to ask what is the terms of the photographers services before you hired him. If you wanted to do what you wanted with his work, you should have either contracted that in the first place, or just took the photos yourself. You could possibly work something out after the fact, but you are at a disadvantage now. If you were doing scientific research for example, the ability to publish the photos in scientific journals would have been included in the contract.

You should not assume you own the photos just because you paid for the photographer to take them. Even in routine photography, like a wedding, you pay a fee for the photographer, plus a charge for each print you buy (or package of prints). You are not free to print as many of his photos of your wedding as you like. This is normal with all professional photography.

[tom kane]

Thanks Petros, and I agree with what you say. The experience I refer to happened a long time ago when sensible trust and simple negotiation was the norm in New Zealand and a contract was not normal for such a simple task as as taking a few photos with dubious professional equipment..Yes I was at a disadvantage when sensible trust broke down and private information about business matters revealed to others. Using Legal means would not have succeeded for me and would have been expensive for us all. These matters could not have been anticipated and included in any legal document with any certainty. Even you say you do not know of what kind of liability a photographer would have with records photos. I did not know at the time either without consulting an expensive Lawyer. All business and Social dealings have certainly changed to self interest at any cost. Legal costs are comparable now to cooperate greed. Cheers.

[Poida]

I needed a photo of myself and I asked for a digital photo so I could reuse it and the price was astonomical. When I asked why it was so expensive I was told that it is because they have a copyright over the photo and the extra cost was to buy the copyright.

I thought, hang about it's my face. These guys have a copyright over my face. It might be butt ugly but, it's still my face.

The silly thing is, I didn't get them to take my photo. So, they get nothing.

I wonder how much business they lose a year because they refuse to put photos on a disk for you. Copyright gone mad.

Poida

[Bamby]

What you've experienced has been a longstanding accepted practice of the "trade". One thing I found that really raised my hackles on photo's was observed on google itself. I have a small website and have personally taken a lot of photo's to post and share in the site.

Some of the photos have received a good first page ranking on the search engines on some search queries. But somehow on some of the photo's an unscrupulous intently has managed to get into google itself and somehow impose a redirect link linking my photo the their website. How they manage to do it I can't figure out, but I've invested hours of my own time trying to somehow neutralize their dirty deed without much success.

So maybe investing in you own camera and take your own photos may save the cost of a photographer itself. But it still doesn't guarantee you'll receive the recognition for your work on the search engines at least.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by Bamby

So maybe investing in you own camera and take your own photos may save the cost of a photographer itself.

I agree, unless professional-looking photos are required. A bit like telling a generic person to design his own boat - it might float, but might sink too. In any case it will hardly look like a professionally-designed boat.
Cheers

[tom kane]

I agree that copyright and Patent laws have reached a peak of extremes which is eliminating their usefulness and intention. I have spent many years involved in Industrial Relations in the Dairy Giant of the world and often because there was no Legal agreement binding parties to certain rules most negotiations went well,but as soon as top flight legal Know-all`s got involved things turned to a runny custard.

Most professional like an established method that runs clients up their garden path which is easy and suits their needs but has little regard for the customer.

Sorting what suits you is difficult because of established trade Practices which can often even be Illegal themselves.

If I gave a professional plans and drawings of a boat I wanted designed and built i would not want then to claim my drawings as theirs,they would be my copyright even if I did not write that on the drawing. Just imagine if Patent Attorneys tried that.

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by tom kane

If I gave a professional plans and drawings of a boat I wanted designed and built i would not want then to claim my drawings as theirs,they would be my copyright even if I did not write that on the drawing. .... .

I think you may be surprised that they are not your copyright - unless you specifically get an agreement with the NA.

I have been surprised how many NA's will not provide copyright at all.

[TeddyDiver]

Dunno how it's generally in other countries, but if the pro in question is an employee of yours, you own his work he's paid to do, but if he works as an entrepreneur it's more complicated as noted here.

[Yobarnacle]

I wonder if some of the copyright claims are valid. Don't you have to apply for one? Similar like for a logo? Pat Pend? Sometimes people claim rights they don't have. example: "We reserve the right to search anyone visiting our premises" Wrong! They can make your agreeing to be searched a condition of entry, but they can't 'Reserve' a 'Right' that never existed nor was theirs.

[Submarine Tom]

These things are normally country dependent.

-Tom

[Yobarnacle]

true..true...so are copyrights automatic in British Commonwealth nations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

"some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration."

[Yobarnacle]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

[Alik]

OK, simple question on copyright: if I want to reference material from published papers in my book, what are the rules? Say, I want to include few published resistance methods with coefficients.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Alik

OK, simple question on copyright: if I want to reference material from published papers in my book, what are the rules? Say, I want to include few published resistance methods with coefficients.

That depends how extensive that reference is, but in simple cases, and when we are talking about scientefic or engineering related references just remember to state the origin so there's no problem. Arts and literature are more strict subjects in this regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...Artistic_Works