Traps employing a professional.

Use " " and footnote it.

 

I'm no expert, in fact learned more this afternoon than I ever wanted to know about copyright. and most I learned is US law, so how much is in accord with other nations is unknown to me.
I would think quoting or posting a photo or diagrahm in a forum wouldn't have ramifications. It's not for commercial gain, it's for education, and you aren't stealing credit if you stipulate it's not yours. In addition, bringing law suits are expensive, even if they could determine who you are. Even winning a lawsuit, there's difficulty in collecting. So I don't think you'd be sued.
Publishing a book is a whole different kettle of fish. I believe I'd seek permission in writing to include anything more from published material, than a recomendation to title and authors name.
But I'm ignorant. Might need a lawyer's opinion.

 

If you feel the material is really worthy of sharing why would you deny the author the credit of "not back-linking the material as the source?" Credit and back linking also helps the author receive recognition for their work in the search engines which can help there site standing also.

 

I wasn't suggesting not giving due credit. That has already been suggested, covered. Many times I come across information on the net, I have no idea whose it is. Especially photos. In such a case, if I want to draw someone else's attention to it, I'll repost but admit it's not my photo and I'm using without permission. I usually at least post the url I found it, but sometimes not if that would be misleading, because I'm making a different point than the page I found it. More clear now?

 

I'll give an example of my appropriately not giving credit. My profile picture. It's supposed to be funny, a far remove from yester-years blue blazers and white duck trousers.
Now, I paid for the game program. I downloaded an open source legal private server for the game. Both the server and game were running on my computer. I designed and equipped the unique character from myriad options in game.
I made the screen capture myself, of my character, and then modified the screen capture so it's totally unique. The game designers encourage players to post their screen captures anyway.
My profile picture has nothing to do with the game, so why would I credit the game designers? Misleading!

 

When it comes to any law of any sort I decide what I think is right and go ahead accordingly and if the person I have a difference of opinion with wishes to spend the time and money proving me wrong..that is great and it saves me time and money.
It it obvious that no one even professionals can give a definite answer to anything otherwise there would be a lot less judges deciding things for us.

 

mr Kane,
When you started this thread, it was about the photographer having copyright to pictures he took of you. The following url is about movies rather than still photos, but includes stills. It says, the person in the photos DOES have rights to how, when, and who may use his photo in many countries. Didn't mention New Zealand, so maybe?
Movies are a real copyright can of worms, apparently. All sorts of artisans need to sign off their rights in favr of the producer. Movie producers must be very persuasive folk.

http://www.skillset.org/film/knowledge/article_5097_1.asp

 

Thank`s Yobarnacle for info. The thread is about " Traps of employing a professional",and probably too wide ranging of a field. One would have to be aware of the perceived accepted practices of every trade and profession you intend to deal with which is a big task and bigger than the job you want done.
It has been my practice to do everything I possibly can myself,that includes Legal and Trade work it saves a lot of time I get it done when I need it done and it means I don`t have to work to earn that money I would have needed to pay a professional. ( Tax free income.)
I am probably too independent and my methods would not work for most people but the way the economy, political, social management has been carried out gives no credit to Professional Management and leaves me wondering where the clever people are. I work on the assumption that the Law (in most countries) tries to be fair and reasonable.

 

"Buyer beware" I believe is the caveat.

-Tom

 

When you're dealing with subcontracters, extra care is required. I built a couple homes for my family in my lifetime. During the last bout of construction, two fellows in a pickup came unsolicited seeking carpenters work. Something about them seemed a bit off, and I didn't hire them. Just minutes after they left, I noticed a strange toolbox on site. I grabbed it and chased them down. Gave them back the toolbox. I already knew from the first house I built, a toolbox left over night is intent to work, ie: an agreement for work, and they can file a mechanic's lien against property if you don't pay. So being saavy enough not to contract with dishonest people isn't enough. You have to watch out for their tricks.

 

If the other party truly is a professional, they will have some standard paperwork ready for this purpose. The two of you will sit down together, discuss what's in the agreement and what it means, fill in some blanks to indicate who has what rights, and sign it.
If the "professional" doesn't take the time to do that, then by definition, they lack the professionalism and knowledge to be called a professional.

Photographers' contracts and model releases almost always state that copyright is retained by the photographer. The client is typically granted a non-expiring licence to use and distribute the work as he sees fit. If confusion arises, it's usually about whether or not that licence is exclusive, i.e. can the photographer re-licence a copy of the work for another purpose, or publish it himself without additional permission from the client.
Photographers are usually tradespeople, not professionals, although they often prefer the latter term and the best ones conduct themselves in a professional manner. They are usually paid for the end product of their work, which like that of any other tradesperson, depends on specialized skills that the average person hasn't learned. Professionals, by comparison, are chosen and paid for the knowledge they bring to the table and for the decisions they make.

The copyright to your drawings would remain with you, true.
The copyright to the final construction drawings, done by the designer, would be the designer's. If you don't want him to offer the same design to other customers, you can usually negotiate that into the contract for an additional cost.
No designer will "check over" a client's own drawings and put his own stamp of approval on them. That risks exposing him to liability for all the client's mistakes. Rather, he'll design something more or less from scratch, that has all the features the client's sketches say to include, and that looks generally similar.

For a quotation, a summary of his work in your own words, or a few numbers, just cite it with a footnote or endnote pointing to the original.
To reproduce a complete table, a graph, etc. you should contact the original publisher, in writing. Say something like "I would like to request the permission of %author% to reproduce figure %N% from %paper, journal, date% in a review of the literature on the topic". Generally speaking, facts can't be copyrighted, but papers and graphs certainly can. You won't get in trouble for asking- the worst that can happen is they say "no, we'd prefer for this work to languish in obscurity and never be cited".

 

My understanding is that most "professional" photographers in the US who take photos of weddings, portraits, etc usually do not allow any copies of the photographs to be made unless purchased through them. I don't know what the typical policy is for photographs being to be reproduced on the internet but my guess is many photographers would object unless compensated or written into the contract/agreement. Photographers who do work for commercial and institutional clients may have different policies.

Without an agreement to the contrary the designer could offer the construction plan to another customer, but not copies of the drawings supplied to him/her. In US law at least, there wouldn't be anything to prevent the designer from developing a similar design of their own.

If someone did do calculations, analysis or evaluation based on a set of drawings, they do not obtain any rights to the drawings.

 

quote: "They are usually paid for the end product of their work, which like that of any other tradesperson, depends on specialized skills that the average person hasn't learned. Professionals, by comparison, are chosen and paid for the knowledge they bring to the table and for the decisions they make." quote

I always understood the term "profession", while generally often used or misused as a synonym for "job", actually refers to regulated, licensed, practice. Doctors have licenses to practice medicine. Lawyers need to be members of the bar to practice. Teachers have teaching certificates. All of these "licenses" can be revoked by the regulatory body, and the person booted out of the profession. An auto mechanic may be professional in his attitude and dedication, but he practices a trade, not a profession. This I was taught was the difference.

 

True, Yobarnacle. That would be a valid definition.

I might add that a tradesperson who does shoddy work will soon find that his shoddiness is obvious and no-one is willing to hire him.

If a consulting engineer or a lawyer were to do shoddy work, oftentimes no-one outside that specialty would notice, until the whole thing blew up into a huge mess. The consequences of error are greater, and the client will likely not be able to detect errors until it's too late.

Hence, part of the reason why licensed professions have regulatory bodies: if you're buying professional knowledge and input, you may not be able to notice if it's wrong. (If you could, you wouldn't need to hire someone). So the profession as a whole must hold its members to a certain high standard, or else the profession as a whole loses the trust of the public.

 

A variation on the theme;

I work with GRP. A client comes along and want a certain amount of custom items molded to his specifications. Since one need a mold to produce these items and the client cannot supply one, I charge him for the cost and time to produce a plug and mold of the item so moldings can be produced using the said mold. The amount of items taken from the mold is paid separately each.

Question; Since the client paid for the labor and materials to produce the plug and mold taken thereof, to whom does the plug and mold belong?