do you copyright ( or non- us equiv ) ?

I thought 'fair use' only applies in the academic world.

BrianShaw said:

I tried buying negs once - the photographer of my wedding was going out of business and offered to sell them to us for more money than I wanted to pay... so it never happened. But the interesting thing is that he wanted to retain his copyright and assign all other rights - print, duplicate, destroy, venerate, fold, spindle or mutilate, etc - to me. I think he intended that to include both personal and commercial purposes but can't recall exactly if that wasmentioned. It seems as though, had I bought them, I could do whatever I wanted to do except falsely claim that I was the cerator of the image.

Click to expand...

Too bad it never happened for you... I had a great relationship with my wedding photographer, and I have the negatives to do what I will. Though 6x4.5 won't give me the thrill of Platinum I envisioned that day... it makes an awesome Silver Gelatin print.

jnanian said:

ian, brian and agx ..

if you sold the NEGATIVE ( or singular positive, where no negative existed ) as part of a work of art would you register it ?

thanks!
john

Click to expand...

I don't understand this preoccupation with "register copyright". Assuming you were the original creator of the work on that negative(s) and as such copyright is automatically vested in that work in your name from the time it is made. If you decide to sell that copyrighted work rights-inclusive that would be termed Re-assignment of Copyright, literally handing over creator rights to the new owner who is free to use the work as he or she feels. In copyright reassignment procedure, a fee is charged and that fee can be anything from a few hundred to millions — it's your call.

thanks for all your help !

i guess i'll cross that bridge when i come to it, and when the item/s in question are sold i'll have a very clear bill of sale &c.
john

Too lazy to destroy the negative is a lame excuse... It takes more effort to include the negative with the prints to send to the "job/client" than to make a pile and set it on fire or send it through a shredder...

Why not send the negative as the copywrite registration .... Then they have it and you don't have to deal with it...

StoneNYC said:

Too lazy to destroy the negative is a lame excuse... It takes more effort to include the negative with the prints to send to the "job/client" than to make a pile and set it on fire or send it through a shredder...

Click to expand...

"being lazy" is a lame excuse ?
... i've created singular images/ objects for a long time ...
with previous work, the negatives have always been ephemeral ( and i never had to deal with them ) ...
i do not want destroy these new negatives because i am selfish and lazy,
it took me 25+ years to get here, and if i destroy my negatives, it will put me back 25 years,
i am too lazy to do it all over again ... besides i will probably be dead in 25 years
and don't plan on making photographs from the grave.

it is labor intensive making the prints (images) since i will be doing it all by hand
. ... not sure how including the negative is considered more effort .. the negative is already made ...

i guess if you only processing film making the negative is the hard part ... ?

Why not send the negative as the copywrite <sic> registration .... Then they have it and you don't have to deal with it...

Click to expand...

the copyright office doesn't retain negatives