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

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Copyright Discussions <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:46:55 -0500 (EST)
References: <4d5094eb6c.4eb6c4d509@ncf.ca> <20041104011747.GA29523@redowl.dyndns.org>

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Jon-o Addleman wrote:

> 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.

  These different issues are currently dealt with in two different parts
of the act.

  13(2) and 13(3) deal with commissioning and work for hire.  If 13(2)  
doesn't exist, then these commissioned photographs fall to 13(3) which has
a veto-clause special case to it that really worries the newspaper
business.

---cut---
(3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person 
under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the 
course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was 
employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the 
first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other 
contribution to a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, there shall, 
in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved 
to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise 
than as part of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical.
---cut---


  The "Hey, take my picture with my camera" situation is (in theory) taken
care of by 10(2) of the act.  I say "in theory" as it talks about plates
and negatives which don't really make sense in the context of digital
photography.  It is also not clear whether this applies to video (motion
photography) which should be treated the same as still photography.  With 
modern digital cameras that can do both stills and motion the line is 
extremely blurred in reality.

  The current senate bill mangles with all of these things, including a
huge jumbling of labour relations issues as well as many many domestic
photography (professional and amateur) issues.


  While I feel for the photographers in what they were asking for, Bill
S-9 is like trying to swat a fly with a wrecking ball and has far more
harmful unintended consequences than intended consequences, even if you
agreed with the intended consequences.


BTW: Please send a letter to your MP to let them know you are worried
about this stuff.  Even if you don't have time to write a proofread
letter, we need to ensure as many MPs as possible will know there is
considerable concern on copyright issues.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Code is Law: how software code regulates the activities of citizens,
 and acts similar to law.  How do we ensure transparency/accountability?  
 http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/life-of-hacker.html#code=law
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss