Re: selling prints
- From: skidog@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:48:53 -0400
Thanks to everyone who posted a reply to my question. The one photo I
took is the best one of the batch that I took; I have one more of a
fox and a bear, but it did not turn out as good, so, I am lacking the
'body of work' that a gallery might want to see.
I will investigate the other avenues suggested.
Bob
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:24:24 -0800, floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@xxxxxxx> wrote:.
Virtually *nothing* stated above is correct.1. Your photograph or other original work that is covered by
copyright law is in fact copyrighted the instant you create it.
Learn how to properly quote... which does *not* include editing
the way others presented their words. If you want to itemize
the list, do so in a way that show it was *your* addition, not
the original author's writing (which, BTW, is copyrighted...).
2. You may need to register the copyright before initiating certain
types of legal action against someone who violates your
copyright, but registration can be done at any time.
I misstated that slightly. Registration also affects whether you
are entitled to punitive damages, and must occur *before* an
infringement to be valid for that purpose. Statutory damages do
not require prior registration.
3. Whether
the work is marked as being copyrighted is of no significance,**************************************************************************
nor is any date or name affixed to it. (You might want to mark
it anyway, just for identification purposes, but don't confuse
that with whether it is or is not covered by copyright law.)
Number 1. True but that can be challanged. What is to prevent the person
Copyright registration can also be challenged.
that uses your photo from copyrighting it? Otherwise if what I said was so
incorrect, what is the purpose of copyrighting anything? Why do we have a
copyright office? Many photographers suggest sending in a collection of
photos and getting them copyrighted.
You have misunderstood what a copyright is. You do not *get* a
copyright by registering it. Your work *is* copyrighted the
instant you create it as an original work.
Number 2. Like I said in (1), what is to protect the person that used your
photo from copyrighting it first?
They do not own the copyright to anything you create unless they
have a *written* document of the transfer.
If two people register the same copyright, it is certainly a
matter that only a court can settle as to legal ownership of the
copyright (and hence the registration). That any given item is
already registered is in fact *not* necessarily sufficient to
prevent a second part from also registering it. That is because
copyright registration in and of itself is *not* proof of
copyright ownership.
Number 3. You are not in agreement with what I have read from Rohn Engh,
author of Sell and Resell Your Photos. Also the owner of the Photosource
web site I mentioned.
Untrue. Read the web page you cited.
For example, under the title of "LEGAL PROTECTION FOR YOUR WEB SITE",
at this URL,
http://www.photosource.com/cpyright/cpymar98.html
Your cited web page says this:
Question: What sort of legal protection is available for Web
site designs?
Answer: A Web site design -- like other works created by
human "authors" -- is protected by copyright as long as it is
"fixed" (recorded in HTML code or otherwise) and "original."
Material is "original" as long as it wasn't copied from some
pre-existing source. The "originality" requirement is not
difficult to satisfy; neither artistic merit nor novelty is
required for a work to be "original."
Under current law, copyright protection arises automatically
when an original work of authorship is "fixed." It is not
necessary to file a copyright registration application in
order to get copyright protection for a Web site design, nor
is it necessary to use the copyright notice symbol on a Web
site to get copyright protection.
Which is *exactly* the same as what I've said.
Why if it being marked copyrighted is of no value or
significance, are photos in magazines printed with the name and copyright
info? Why don't they just say, photo by Abe Lincoln. They don't they say,
copyright 2006 Abe Lincoln.
It has no legal significance. The only value it has is to make
people like yourself *think* about it. Whether it is marked as
copyrighted or not does not change how the law applies, and does
not change what is or is not a violation of your copyright.
I suggest going to the www.photosource.com
I suggest you actually *read* that web page. It isn't the best
(it is very poorly organized), but I didn't see any thing wrong
on it either. It does *not* agree with what you have stated.
website and read Stock Photography 101 and look through the archives for
accurate information. I would take the word of Rohn Engh and the other
A quick google search shows that Rohn Engh publishes a number of
books on selling photographs, *none* of which appear to say what
you claim.
photographers that are on that site before I would take the word of someone
that says that "virually nothing I said is correct". Ric in Wisconsin.
Suit yourself. I think you should learn a bit more about copyright.
Here is a *very* good place to start:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
- References:
- selling prints
- From: skidog
- Re: selling prints
- From: Ric Trexell
- Re: selling prints
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: selling prints
- From: Ric Trexell
- Re: selling prints
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- selling prints
- Prev by Date: Re: another newbie question
- Next by Date: Books: Canon EOS Rebel T2
- Previous by thread: Re: selling prints
- Next by thread: FA: "Fantasy Nudes" and "The Stereoscopic Nude"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
