It looks like both lawyer agree that the videotographer owns the copyright even though the photographer pressed the shutter.
1. It is in the contract.
2. The videotographer concieved and designed the shot and contracted the photographer to assist in this shot so it is his (videotographers) intelectual property.
The photographer might be looking for another lawyer. If he pushes farther he is going to be given the copyright and be sued to finish the video clip the photo is part of. The attorney said what saved him is the contract that states somthing like "(Photographer's name) is in the employ of (videotographer LLC)" but the law is very vague and there are several contradictions in wording and interpitation. This is like when I was a studio employee, the studio owner ownes copyright even if I shot the image because I was in his employ and under his direction.
I dont think this is over, I will post the court decision if it comes to that but the lesson so far is have a signed contract that states only one named (your name and title) person owns copyright.
BTW I found out under the latest federal interpitation of regestered copyright, if you submit several images to the copyright office on one disc you have only copyrighted the collection as a whole. This gives no protection to any single image. You only have protection if someone copys 90%+ of the collection.
1. It is in the contract.
2. The videotographer concieved and designed the shot and contracted the photographer to assist in this shot so it is his (videotographers) intelectual property.
The photographer might be looking for another lawyer. If he pushes farther he is going to be given the copyright and be sued to finish the video clip the photo is part of. The attorney said what saved him is the contract that states somthing like "(Photographer's name) is in the employ of (videotographer LLC)" but the law is very vague and there are several contradictions in wording and interpitation. This is like when I was a studio employee, the studio owner ownes copyright even if I shot the image because I was in his employ and under his direction.
I dont think this is over, I will post the court decision if it comes to that but the lesson so far is have a signed contract that states only one named (your name and title) person owns copyright.
BTW I found out under the latest federal interpitation of regestered copyright, if you submit several images to the copyright office on one disc you have only copyrighted the collection as a whole. This gives no protection to any single image. You only have protection if someone copys 90%+ of the collection.
