[WikiEN-l] More fair use image overreaching

[geni]

On 02/03/2008, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at 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

-- 
geni