Re: [d@DCC] Who should own your wedding pictures?

From: Jon-o Addleman <jonathan.addleman _-at-_ mail.mcgill.ca>
To: General Copyright Discussions <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:17:47 -0500
References: <4d5094eb6c.4eb6c4d509@ncf.ca>

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 07:55:54PM -0500, Wallace J.McLean spake thusly:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon-o Addleman <jonathan.addleman@mail.mcgill.ca>
> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:30 pm
> Subject: Re: [d@DCC] Who should own your wedding pictures?
> 
> > Maybe I misread you - I just meant that 'interest to use' shouldn't
> > determine the author.
> 
> Of course it shouldn't.

[big snip]

Ok. now I know that I *DEFINITELY* misread you. Sorry. For some reason I
got in my head that you were advocating that the commissioner should be
considered the *author*. Silly me.

I still am leery of defining these exceptions to the general rule, if
only because they are so hard to define. But maybe it's a case where the
line would just have to be drawn somewhere...

Anyway, I guess what you're saying is basically (and correct me if I'm
wrong) works for hire should all be treated basically the same: the
author is the author, but the commissioner/employer automatically gets
first copyright, unless some form of contract makes an exception.

That still doesn't address the issue of loaning a camera to someone, but
I see that as a rather different issue entirely, and probably should
have nothing whatsoever to do with questions regarding work for hire in
any case.

-- 
Jon-o Addleman - http://redowl.dyndns.org
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss