Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Peter McCormick wrote:

I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA.

In both countries,


The OP's remarks, below, are an accurate statement of _today's_ environment.



############################

Robert Bonomi did and Fred did such a stellar job I am almost reluctant
to comment. -- but.. Again -- for those interested here are the
copyright links that can get you started. Also -- at the end of _my_
post (minor rant?), I posted the definitions from dictionary.com for
trademark, trade name, patent etc. They are pretty good/ And reading
them can help eliminate confusion in _most_ cases.

A quick reference to where things are usually applied.... This is only
useful for _generally_ determining where to start...


Copyright -- a "work" (music, book, document, picture, sculpture, a
program, a wood turning, a wood art (wood work) creation... etc.)
Copyright protection can be _very_ broad. Eye of the beholder right...

moral rights -- related to copyright -- they may limit the use or the
enjoyment of an item to what the original creator intended. (Unless you
are assigned (purchase?) the moral rights you cannot alter a work you
purchased.) Eye of the beholder right...

Patent " a process or means to produce an invention or thing" The rights
to make a thing for commercial (or other) exploitation. The rights to a
plan of a thing. (eye of the courts...)

Trademark -- a "symbol" to identify an entity.

Trade name -- a language based name to represent a business (see dba)

This is a quickie idea of "how to start thinking" when you see a term...
nothing more. They don't always work and someone else may have a better
way to make a quickie classification.

If you have people working for you in _any_ way -- you really must have
agreements as to who owns what...

Eye of the beholder... What I mean by that is that of the copyright
holder does not consider your use to be a violation then "no problem" --
however, if your use of an item comes to their attention and they feel
it is "unfair use" then they can take action.

Fair use -- _usually_ allows you to extract small portions of an item
for discussion or criticism. ...Say in a newspaper article or a student
or academic paper. (Tough to do with a a photo copy...) But -- see the
treaties... Without paying a royalty...


****************************************

Having had to write agreements and use IP protection agreements, having
spent time in front of judges on these issues and being a strong
Believer in IP -- what would I do? Copy the photo myself and shut up or
find someone who _will_ do it and shut up (not a big shop -- they are
too vulnerable to law suits -- They have $$$). As long as the item was
of a personal nature and of no perceived value to another person. Having
said that many photogs are getting smarter and put a "studio stamp" on
the back of their photos... and if they still exist... If I knew the
photographer who took the photo, I would grit my teeth and go back to
them... and expect to pay through the nose as usual -- sigh.

And that is why like Charlie S. I do my own photos and processing now...


*************

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.

Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based
on most questions I have seen here.

Most questions in this forum are answered here.

The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism
copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries...

Again -- note moral rights here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

USA Enactment of...
http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US....onvention.html

More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html

Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...tart=1 0&sa=N

=====================

Before getting into these discussions a quickt trip to dictionary.com
can be useful...

As George C. pointed out, a lot of these definitions must be clear or
the arguments/discussions become worthless.


*************
fair use

n : the conditions under which you can use material that is copyrighted
by someone else without paying royalties


++++++++++++++++

trademark

A distinctive proprietary emblem, insignia, or name that identifies
a particular product or service. A trademark is an intangible asset that
may be protected from use by others.


----------------------------
trade name
n.

1. A name used to identify a commercial product or service, which
may or may not be registered as a trademark. Also called brand name.
2. The name by which a commodity, service, or process is known to
the trade.
3. The name under which a business firm operates.


(Also -- for interest -- see DBA, dba or "doing business as")
------------------------------------

intellectual property (Or IP for short)
n.

A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including
copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational
property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and
industrial processes.

========================================
pat·ent
n.

1.
1. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator
of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for
a set period of time.
2. Letters patent.
3. An invention protected by such a grant.
2.
1. A grant made by a government that confers on an individual
fee-simple title to public lands.
2. The official document of such a grant.
3. The land so granted.
3. An exclusive right or title.



*************************************
When dealing with _old_ items, at least in the U.S. (I _don't_ know anything
about 'ancient' Canadian law on the matter), the situation gets *much* more
complex.

_Prior_ to the U.S.'s adoption of "Berne Convention" standards:
copyright was *NOT* automatic.
There *did* have to be an assertation of copyright on every item,
*AND* the claim had to be 'registered'/filed with the Government
(simultaneous with, or prior to first publication.)

The Berne Convention 'alignment' also _radically_ changed the classification
of "work done for hire" -- greatly to the benefit of the individual producing
the work, and the detriment of the party paying for it.

That change in what constitutes 'work done for hire' applies only to work
done after the law was adopted. Works produced before that date are still
judged by the rules in effect _when_ they were produced.

As regards 'duration of copyright', the details on older works get *messy*.

Works that were still 'in copyright' at the time of the statutory revisions,
automatically 'inherited' the new, longer protections.

Works that were 'out of copyright' by the rules when they were produced, but
would be 'in copyright' if the new rules hadn't been in force at the time they
were produced, got special treatment. *IF* the original owner chose, they
could file for a 're-establishment' of the copyright, that ran from the time
of that filing forward. Any 'copying' that had been done between the time
of the prior expiration, and the re-establishment was *not* infringement.
'Re-establishing' copyright *did* require that the item had been protected
by copyright originally -- i.e., the claim asserted on the item, and the
requisite 'registration' with the government. The gov't published listings
of the works for which copyright was re-established -- it can be found on-line
on the web. (I was looking for a 1950's children's book, and got a hit on
that list.)

Works that were of an age that, even if the new rules had been in effect at
the time of their creation, would be 'out of copyright', remained unprotected.

The subsequent 'tweaking' of copyright duration has introduced additional
variations on the above.



Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two
exceptions...

1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment.
(In this case the copyright belongs to the employer).

2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and
client, that assigns the copyright to a third party.

When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore,
are not entitled to an automatic copyright.

Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production
(prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph.

Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.

A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
copyright.

Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes
the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years
following his death.

Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value
obtained from selling further copies of the work.

In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at
least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be
actionable.

Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It
is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in
exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image.

If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays
your money and takes your chances."


Fleet







--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek