IP and Copyright

[kneeshooter]

Sometimes I despair of people. The bottom line is that if you care about having rights and control over anything original you produce then at least have a basic understanding of the issues.

Gah.

Which reminds me, I must post "Simon's view of Photographic Copyright 101" soon.

Comments

[velvet-the-cat.livejournal.com]

I'd be rather interested in your take on photographic copyright - it'd save me some reading for a start!

[kneeshooter]

Remind me every so often. It will of course be biased towards live music photography, but that'll be based on common uk law principles.

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

1) Always keep hold of your negatives (or RAWs or whatever)
2) Possession is 99.9% of the law.

[kneeshooter]

I was more thinking of applied copyright - like "Just because you are in the photo does not mean it is yours" "Just because I put it on the web does not mean I give you permission to use it" "Just because you are in the photo does not give you the right to photoshop it, remove the copyright symbol and refuse to acknowledge it was mine" and so on.

[robcee.livejournal.com]

I was taking some photos at a fight last night where the promoter thought they had all rights to all photos taken on the premises...

It is quite scary. Are you referring to motivational posters btw?

[purplewizard.livejournal.com]

Hmmm of course people might say
Just because I'm in costume doesn't give you the right to take a photo of me...

[kneeshooter]

maleghast and I plan to have a new code of conduct for photography at Maelstrom worked up for the next event. It basically comes down to your permission to be at the site/venue combined with any restrictions placed on you by your ticket.

We hope to make both the "rules" and "good practice" clear.

[black-neon9.livejournal.com]

would be interested in that, ive often wondered, how copyright works in regards to digital manipulation, i.e. would the copyright remain with the photographer?

[kneeshooter]

I think so. Would have to look it up though...

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

My recollection is that if you make enough changes (there might even be a specified number) to make the original image different then you are ok. But I have jet lag and it's been a while since I looked it out, so I could have it wrong.

[kneeshooter]

You're probably right - but what doesn't happen is that you can work on the image without permission. That is a breach of copyright, even if otherwise the final image belongs to the manipulator.

If that makes any sense...

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

It does. I didn't know that part though.
Not that it affects me anyway.

[redhillian.livejournal.com]

IIRC, the copyright belongs to the person who takes the picture unless you then transfer license or otherwise relinquish those rights. If you've got control of that little © then you can put that picture up down left or right, or deny the putting of it how you like (barring certain restrictions, like pictures of willies in angry mode, children in the nude and the suchlike) The model has some rights regarding portrayal and profit, but not many compared to you.

Of course, creative commons and so on then change that around, and quite a lot...

[kneeshooter]

Indeed. There is some devil in the detail though, especially with respect to performances which is the focus of my interest.

[redhillian.livejournal.com]

I await the publication of your guide to hellcopyright law with interest...