IPOS Links on Copyright - Essential for Photographers to understand their rights
- Thread starter Darren
- Start date
V
vince123123
Guest
babyhee said:
Which king died and left you with the power to award the title of USELESS FOOLS to us? Please respect others' opinions, even if you do not share the same beliefs.
My turn to say "cheers".
come on, this is quite clearly trolling. will the mod do something about it and let us continue with sensible discussions, whether you agree with the legal framework or not.
photopurist said:
Oh, dear..where on earth do you come from??!!! Am sorry to say that you have no intergrity or whatsoever as a photographer.
I think copyright and open source are different things... open source has its own copy"left" which is still a licence to copy.babyhee said:
copyright is when something you know is yours and yet you lose your claims to its origin and ownership beause there are no copyright laws allowing you to assert your claim to it.
notice that you say you freely allow people to use "your" photos. What if one day u find "your" photo being published under someone else's credit?
Without copyright laws you'll have a hard time getting the "yours" back, even if you file suit or possess evidence.
I think we all here are more than happy to share our pictures (unlike assignments done for money) for enjoyment.
Yup, Open Source does not = No Copyright.
Open Source materials have their own copyright. It is just that the authors of open source products do not insist on collecting royalties or other forms of payment for using their products. Although open source authors allow others to copy, modify and use their products, they frequently do so only if you agree to the terms of their licence. A common term of the open source licence is that you shall not use the product for commercial gain or profit. If you do so, you are in breach of the licence and hence in breach of their copyright, for which the author can take legal action for copyright infringement.
Another point for photographers:
If you are commissioned by someone to take photos for a particular purpose, the copyright belongs to him. But if he uses it for some other purpose without telling you and seeking your permission, you are entitled to stop him from doing so. This is a special "moral right" given to photographers, painters and engravers.
Open Source materials have their own copyright. It is just that the authors of open source products do not insist on collecting royalties or other forms of payment for using their products. Although open source authors allow others to copy, modify and use their products, they frequently do so only if you agree to the terms of their licence. A common term of the open source licence is that you shall not use the product for commercial gain or profit. If you do so, you are in breach of the licence and hence in breach of their copyright, for which the author can take legal action for copyright infringement.
Another point for photographers:
If you are commissioned by someone to take photos for a particular purpose, the copyright belongs to him. But if he uses it for some other purpose without telling you and seeking your permission, you are entitled to stop him from doing so. This is a special "moral right" given to photographers, painters and engravers.
tks said:
Agree with tks. Open Source not equals to No Copyright.
Let's just leave this discussion to the fact that the copyright law exists to protect artist/photographers who wish to use it.
And to those who feel that it is unnecessary, respect the rights of others if they choose not to share their work for free.
in that case, wouldn't the wedding couple have the primary rights to the raw copies of the wedding photographs taken by the official photographs engaged?
Well.. i feel that there is something wrong with this exception. Firstly, for an artist to draw a portrait, the artist is paid to do so. And in normal circumstances, the drawing/portrait is owned by the person who commissioned the painting. Reproducing an exact portrait is really difficult and requires hard work / talent and skills with his brush. For a photographer however, reproducing an exact copy of the image is just a simple copy. Not much hard work involved here. That leaves the person who commissioned/engage the services of the photographer at a disadvantage as he paid for the service and yet loses his copyright for his image. I guess something should be fixed here. So long that the photographer is being paid by an amount that the photographer is willing to accept for the job assignment, the copyright should remains with the person who paid for it. Permission should be asked instead by the photographer if he wishes it to be used for his portfolio.
Take an analogy, an advertisment designer, who designed an ad could not claim copyright for his advertisment design. The advertisment is own solely by ad company and not him. He can't use it if he decides to work for another company. However, if he decides to work for another company, and wishes to use his previous design, the new company can negotiate for the use of his work with his previous company.
Thats why.. i can't figure out why there are these 2 exceptions. There should not be any exceptions at all. So long the the photographer is being paid for what he had asked for, he shouldn't claim any copyright at all.
V
vince123123
Guest
Erm, it applies to photographers too - copyright goes to the commissioner and not the photographer.
em, you seem to be posting irrelevantly in this thread. well, you can start off asking in a new thread in the newbie subforum about...
1. what DSLR do you want to buy?
2. where to take lessons?
i have a link to a newbie thread on DSLR in my signature, for your reading.
Agree with tks. Open Source not equals to No Copyright.
Let's just leave this discussion to the fact that the copyright law exists to protect artist/photographers who wish to use it.
And to those who feel that it is unnecessary, respect the rights of others if they choose not to share their work for free.
Respect exhibitj :thumbsup: - you have great wise words.
Peace and Happy New Year to everyone else
P.S. I find sport is much better for venting frustrations!
Being hard on a person in those circumstances is understood as being competitive and accepted. I have a Minolta 70W that someone can smash against the wall!Regarding this issue, will you all mind if other people have taken your photos and used as their PC wallpaper without your permission?
V
vince123123
Guest
IPOS does not enforce IP laws by the way; enforcements is left to individual rights owners to file their own action in court.
Copyright law exists to provide protection to human creativity and to maintain integrity to the work.
Copyrights expire after a certain period, in order for it to be released back into the public domain. This lets other artists use/modify/manipulate that particular work e.g a piece of music can be used to score a film, so that human creativity can progress.
However, the sad part is, huge corporations have been exploiting this law for years for profit. The music industry is a major example, maintaining monopolies over various music sources.
Therefore, something called the Creative Commons have been established as an alternative to Copyright. Work created using Creative Commons go straight to the public domain. While the standard copyright symbol is a 'c' in a circle, the Creative Commons symbol is two 'c's in a circle. Under the Creative Commons, artists still maintain the right to their work, however, other artists are free to use/manipulate/interpret the work as they wish. I consider it as the 'ah beng' brother who means well of Copyright.
This helps creativity and innovation to progress. Imagine a world in which you can be sued creating a work, just because it's too alike another, even if you have never seen the other piece before. Would that be a world you want to live in? Not me.
In conclusion, copyright has its own purpose and use but personally, it's the Creative Commons for me, even when it comes to my own work
Copyrights expire after a certain period, in order for it to be released back into the public domain. This lets other artists use/modify/manipulate that particular work e.g a piece of music can be used to score a film, so that human creativity can progress.
However, the sad part is, huge corporations have been exploiting this law for years for profit. The music industry is a major example, maintaining monopolies over various music sources.
Therefore, something called the Creative Commons have been established as an alternative to Copyright. Work created using Creative Commons go straight to the public domain. While the standard copyright symbol is a 'c' in a circle, the Creative Commons symbol is two 'c's in a circle. Under the Creative Commons, artists still maintain the right to their work, however, other artists are free to use/manipulate/interpret the work as they wish. I consider it as the 'ah beng' brother who means well of Copyright.
This helps creativity and innovation to progress. Imagine a world in which you can be sued creating a work, just because it's too alike another, even if you have never seen the other piece before. Would that be a world you want to live in? Not me.
In conclusion, copyright has its own purpose and use but personally, it's the Creative Commons for me, even when it comes to my own work
Last edited:
Similar threads
