Re: (Fwd) Copyright -Reply

[v.bromfield@xxxxxxxxxx (Vaughan Bromfield)]

>Steve,
>
>Thank you for your time in researching the law.  I wouldn't be please if
>someone went out and copies previews from a wedding I photographed.  I think
>Walter Clark would be happy we are sharing his words!
>
>Tammy  :)


Tammy

Why wouldn't you be happy that a client gives lots of their friends samples
of your excellent wedding pictures. You know, sharing around the happiness
of the day etc. Do you own the copyright of the images or just the
negatives? (Oops, another can of worms opened... the olde "who owns the
copyright" debate <grin>)

Not to attack *you* personally, but I really can't see a difference between
how you feel about the photos and Walter feels (or potentially may feel)
about the words.

The legal post suggested to me nothing to say that the copyright *had*
lapsed, only that it *may* have lapsed. After all, somebody might have
renewed copyright. Did anybody check that?

BTW here in Australia there has never been a legal need to "register"
copyright it has always been automatically attributed, even if a (c) notice
was not attached. (Though lack of (c) info would make it harder to prove a
case I guess.)

Vaughan


PPS --not pictures per second-- I just read a post saying Walter worked for
Kodak. Does the copyright of the book belong to them? If so they would have
probably renewed.

VB



------------------------------

Topic No. 17