In a message dated 3/2/2008 2:11:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Really? Who holds the copyright on such a pic? If you argue for no contract then the situation is easy to deal with. The person who took the picture holds the copyright thus the camera owner can't upload to wikipedia and any such image should be deleted. However in your email dated 2 Mar 2008 08:14 you described such deletions as "ridiculous behaviour" which means you must think there is some form of valid implied contract in such an action. Perhaps there is as I said I don't know but it is an issue of contract law.
Please point to some case, in contract law, where a random stranger, sued the person they were taking a picture of, because they didn't get
permission or
whatever you're saying.
As I said no established case law. That doesn't mean there isn't law in this area just makes it hard to be sure what it is.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- When I hire someone to work in my studio and take pictures of children, the employee does not hold the copyright to such work, the owner of the studio does. When you are offered a *position* even at no pay, and you agree, you are implicitely and voluntarily giving up your right to claim the results of that work later.
If there is no established case law, then why are you arguing that it's the law? It's your interpretation of the law. And that's all it is. Our policy however is not based on your particular interpretation, but rather on the consensus, addressing directly, and in particular, each issue as it arises. Claiming to hold an argument of the high-horse position, might dissuade those easily misled, but it doesn't work on people who don't agree with an appeal to authority.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When I hire someone to work in my studio and take pictures of children, the employee does not hold the copyright to such work, the owner of the studio does. When you are offered a *position* even at no pay, and you agree, you are implicitely and voluntarily giving up your right to claim the results of that work later.
The counter argument to that is that would probably be to bring up the role of consideration (I'm assuming english common law based here Napoleonic code and the like will be somewhat different). Again I must stress I don't know or pretend to know what the law would decide in this area.
If there is no established case law, then why are you arguing that it's the law?
I made no such argument. I simply said there is law in this area. I didn't say any given position actually was the law because I don't know.
It's your interpretation of the law. And that's all it is.
True but since you appear to have conceded that it is a matter of contract law you appear to agree with my interpretation.
Our policy however is not based on your particular interpretation, but rather on the consensus, addressing directly, and in particular, each issue as it arises.
Shear number of issues that arise each day means that for the most part they are dealt with the first person to get there and feels able to deal with it does so. Obviously we kick around more complex cases but unless you find debates about article 12 of north korean copyright law exciting I doubt they would be of much interest to you
[This is a really pointless side-thread, and if I had any self-control I'd let it drop, but...]
Will Johnson wrote:
When I hire someone to work in my studio and take pictures of children, the employee does not hold the copyright to such work, the owner of the studio does. When you are offered a *position* even at no pay, and you agree, you are implicitely and voluntarily giving up your right to claim the results of that work later.
Well, maybe, but...
If there is no established case law, then why are you arguing that it's the law? It's your interpretation of the law. And that's all it is.
So what is "you are implicitly and voluntarily giving up your right"? That's just your interpretation, right? I don't think we'll ever know.