Who really has copyright?
If I hire an airplane to take pictures of my property
Am I not pushing the shutter remotely?
PP has a big ad today
KEEPSAKE PROPERTY PHOTOS
https://www.jclaerialservices.com/se...bChMI_PvN09-g-
gIVcpoAAB02WQXAEAEYASAAEgJBtPD_BwE
No I did not contact them, I don't need more ads
GIS already has a spy in the sky look at us all
https://www.info.com/serp?q=gis%20ma...xoCB3kQAvD_BwE
Tin Can
Originally Posted by Tin Can
How Copyright Law Applies to Photos of Buildings and Architecture
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...al-photos.html
Tin Can
Photographer still owns the copyright to those images. From the first sentence of the article - "But if you take a photograph of a building, do you have an independent copyright on the photo? The short answer is, yes!"
Since you are not an architect - you still have no claims to copyright for the photography .
If you hire it done be sure to include a clause that says "Work for Hire". Spell it out so you own copyright - otherwise you don't. (USA)
” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
Willie is correct. When it is created it is copyright unless work for hire. Photographers looked unfavorably on work for hire a few years ago and insisted on retaining all rights to the image and only providing a licensing agreement with specific terms. Now with the explosion of images available in digital form enforcement of copyright is practically impossible. A copyright is the same as a patent, a license to sue, that's all. You pay fees to the government to maintain it, but the government will not protect it for you, you have to do that at your expense.
Now I only sell a few collector prints through venues that pay all taxes involved and just give me a 1099. I closed my business and now do only work for hire. This has several advantages. I don't maintain any business personal property, which is taxed in Virginia. Clients must provide the tools and equipment I use on the job. I don't have a home-based business anymore, which allowed city inspectors to come in a look around any time and see what I had that should be taxed. I can also use the entire house and property for my now personal work, whereas a home-based business is restricted to 25% of the house. Liability, even for my actions is on the client because I am their employee. Clients think they are getting a deal because I agreed to a buyout. I make sure they sign my invoice which reads "I understand this is work for hire."
Is there a Cowboy in the picture?
In the end whoever can convince the judge will be awarded the copyright... good luck with your argument...
Let's repeat that truism
We serfs never win......for very long
I am hobbyist and I will never sell any ART
I also never want a 'small business'
Tin Can
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks