Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I would suggest reading about the 'joint ownership doctrine', because in commercial photography, many times, the client can be construed as a co-author of the work, and as such, the authorship (and copyrights) may be shared. There is a very good write-up on it here: http://www.publaw.com/joint.html There is another very good article (in two parts) here that explains the 'work for hire' doctrine: http://www.publaw.com/work1.html http://www.publaw.com/work2.html I encourage anyone who considers themselves as an independent contractor (freelance photographer) to read these. In fact, that whole web site is a great resource. I was not saying what was or wasn't the law. The full version of the U.S. Copyright Law can be downloaded from: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.pdf I was only stating my opinion that I disagree with certain aspects of how the current law is written/interpreted. Certainly anyone can agree or disagree with my opinion, but my opinion (on this matter) is neither 'correct' or 'incorrect'. - ---------- Sorry, I spoke in typo's. Like when I misspelled your name. I meant (in)correct. >But this is the opposite of what Austin is saying. He says that all rights >to any photograph that is commissioned belong to the employer. That is not >true. The copyright remains with the photographer unless he/she is an >regular employee with all the benefits of employment, as you say.