So who owns the rights to the photos you create

yurisrey said:

True, one should never jump to conclusions, especially when there is only sparse information provided. For example, the author states that her defense team has appealed to a higher court yet he/she does not elaborate on the reason why. Now in retrospect and after re-reading the article, I think that little particular is quite important and it makes me curious, (from the journalistic viewpoint) why does the PPA feel rather confident that the law is on her side: "The complaint further states that the Waltons own intellectual property rights to the photos (they don't). The fact is, under federal law, photographers own the copyrights to their own works." ?

Click to expand...

Actually it does state why its going to a higher court, maybe you miss this important fact, but the reason is that the issues regarding photographers rights are covered under federal guidelines not state guidelines so the attorneys for the defendant wanted to escalate the issue to a federal court so that their defense would hold up being that it was a federal law.

StoneNYC said:

Actually it does state why its going to a higher court, maybe you miss this important fact, but the reason is that the issues regarding photographers rights are covered under federal guidelines not state guidelines so the attorneys for the defendant wanted to escalate the issue to a federal court so that their defense would hold up being that it was a federal law.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my wording wasn't very clear in my previous post, but, from what I gathered, the defense's argument is that they were hired as "independent contractors" and how this falls under copyright law. What I am referring to is the appeal itself, (the defense's chess move) otherwise, which holds precedence, the contract (if there was one in the first place, whether it's in writing/ verbal, etc; ) or the artist's copyright (in this case part of an estate). And how I felt this small tidbit of info should've been elaborated on.

The way I see it a person may have the "right" and be in the right, but one small stip followed by a signature (or handshake in some states) can void that right whether its at the local, state or federal level.

Walmart is just a place I can go if I'm in a mood to grieve over what's happened to America. I'd rather have a toothache that to go there.