if the recipient was given the usage rights to the negatives and the copyright was transferred to him/her he/her could reprint the works and publish them in a book and sell them, he /her could sell the collection to Getty Images as stock images ( if they have any commercial value ) or the recipient could print them him/herself and sign the works like sherrie levine has done over the years, but she didn't own the copyright she just printed and sold the images she printed ... it all depends on if the photographer's name has any value. and after that its all about marketing.Here's an interesting side legal question. Let's say the photographer goes broke and/or loses a case in court and pays with the property including his negatives. How would the value of his negatives be valued? What could the recipient of the negatives do with the negatives?
The recipient was not "given" the negiatives. He received the negatives when he let's say won a liability case in court. He sued the photographer for some injury the photographer caused. He was awarded $100,000. The value seized from the photographer was $50,000 in cars, furniture and negatives which would only have value if prints were reproduced. Does the winner of the suit get the right to reproduce? Should he if not?if the recipient was given the usage rights to the negatives and the copyright was transferred to him/her he/her could reprint the works and publish them in a book and sell them, he /her could sell the collection to Getty Images as stock images ( if they have any commercial value ) or the recipient could print them him/herself and sign the works like sherrie levine has done over the years, but she didn't own the copyright she just printed and sold the images she printed ... it all depends on if the photographer's name has any value. and after that its all about marketing.
regarding your first question, why would a photographer sell you the negatives and not the rights to reproduce images from those negatives? you'd have to ask the photographer. that is what photograms are. I've been making and sometimes selling photograms for 30 years, and I don't sell the rights to reproduce anything that I sell.
I understand what the copyright rules are. The question is why shouldn't the rights to reproduce follow the negatives?
I understand what you are saying.I understand what the copyright rules are. The question is why shouldn't the rights to reproduce follow the negatives?
Let's face it. Unless you're weird, and like looking at original negatives on the wall, the whole point in buying negatives is to make prints from them. If I bought the original photographer's negatives, I would assume I could make prints with them. Otherwise, why would I buy them and why would the photographer sell them to me? If the photographer doesn't want me to make copies, don't sell me the negatives. Just sell me a print.
It seems like the copyright law just adds an unnecessary layer for no reason. Why doesn't the law state that if you purchased the negatives, you have a right to print?
in that particular court of law the judge would specifically say if the usage rights were tied to the negatives. .. or not.The recipient was not "given" the negiatives. He received the negatives when he let's say won a liability case in court. He sued the photographer for some injury the photographer caused. He was awarded $100,000. The value seized from the photographer was $50,000 in cars, furniture and negatives which would only have value if prints were reproduced. Does the winner of the suit get the right to reproduce? Should he if not?
You said it better than I said it.I understand what you are saying.
Most anybody would think the same. On the face of things.....It is not an intuitive law.
Somebody abandons their junk, you buy their junk, but they still own the rights to it.?
I assume it dates back to a much earlier time when photographers (like a lot of people) were REALLY taken advantage of by Publishers.
Like when Charlie Parker or Robert Johnson would be payed 50 bux, by a record company to record a song and then the record company would make Thousands from selling the records.
the 80s band Gang of Four had to re-release / re-record their catalog from their first IDK 4-5 albums because the record company claimed ownership of all their work... lot of grifters out there!Intellectual and artistic property are really unique in the eyes of the law... and in the eyes of the creators. Look at Taylor Swift, for instance; she signed some bad agreements and inadvertently gave away rights to her own work to someone else. Now to profit from her own artistic vision/performance she is re-recording in order to legally use her own artistic creations.
It's interesting that the copyright law is one of our oldest laws: "United States copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first U.S. federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790."
I didn’t know about that. And there might be even many more examples of buying music and rights the correct way than the deals gone bad. Id assume it’s the same with photographic art.the 80s band Gang of Four had to re-release / re-record their catalog from their first IDK 4-5 albums because the record company claimed ownership of all their work... lot of grifters out there!
LOL… understand… apparently not, and if so it seems you seem to simply not like the way that law is written.
There was a high-ranking politician who seems to agree with you.Well then if I do not like a law, I am going to just ignore it.
I hear you but it’s only an issue when using other people’s pictures.Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.
Well it;s also an issue when you sell your photos and handle your negatives. You have to make sure all the proper documentation is used to protect yourself.I hear you but it’s only an issue when using other people’s pictures.
Only when you sell one. Not too much of an issue for me at this point.Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.
What's the expression? When you want to kill a deal, get a lawyer involved.True.. important if you sell. But that makes one a professional and professionals should know their business. Copyright, licensing and usage rights are part of the business.
In all of my professional life lawyers have been involved. A cost of doing business without getting in a pickle. Sometimes a real pain-in-the-@$$ because they are so risk averse. But that’s business.
When you want to find yourself in hot water, start doing business without first getting experienced advice - particularly legal, insurance and marketing adviceWhat's the expression? When you want to kill a deal, get a lawyer involved.
Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.
me too but I wish I did for 1 job. a well known real estate developer from out of state asked me to be on their staff and do work for them. they were renovating a large mill complex, and needed someone with my experience. I had been doing photo stuff for nearly 20 years professionally and thought I would be OK ( and they came highly recommended by people I had worked with years before too) ... but .. I know better now. should have had a mechanic's lien put on them. turns out I found out years later I wasn't alone, they ripped off 100s of local people ( some put mechanics liens on them and eventually got paid, they had a lawyer help them out .. ) ... hindsight is 20 20.When I ran my non-photographic business, I don't recall one instance where I used a lawyer to draw up an agreement, proposal, or contract? I
I’m glad they know what photography is because philosophers have been trying to figure out what it is for at least five or six decades…and photography doesn’t know what it is either…The rules about photography are most similar to the performing arts.
When I ran my non-photographic business, I don't recall one instance where I used a lawyer to draw up an agreement, proposal, or contract
Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?