Canadian Photographers Now Officially Own the Copyright to All of Their Photos(petapixel.com)
petapixel.com
Canadian Photographers Now Officially Own the Copyright to All of Their Photos
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/07/canadian-photogs-now-officially-own-the-copyright-to-all-of-their-photos/
16 comments
Somewhat related but lost in the cheering from the photographers is that this law also now makes the act of defeating DRM systems illegal (or more precisely, it is copyright infringement simply to get around DRMs or to distribute tools that do so).
Hopefully this [0] will be rectified via constitutional challenge.
"Many experts believe that the government's decision to adopt one of the most restrictive digital lock approaches in the world - it creates potential liability without actual copyright infringement - renders the provision vulnerable to constitutional challenge." [1]
[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4771752
[1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6557/125/
"Many experts believe that the government's decision to adopt one of the most restrictive digital lock approaches in the world - it creates potential liability without actual copyright infringement - renders the provision vulnerable to constitutional challenge." [1]
[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4771752
[1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6557/125/
Although I would like to see that happen, I think the argument is a big stretch. The constitutional challenge depends on the assertion that there is a free-standing right to access information, even if it is privately produced. Geist and other scholars are of course in favour of this interpretation, but I don't think it has been adopted by courts anywhere yet.
Doesn't this create a conflict with other copyright laws such as the one related with the night lighting of the Eiffel Tower? Who owns the copyright to such photos?
And on a related note: with this law, who owns a photo of person? the photographer or the person himself?
And on a related note: with this law, who owns a photo of person? the photographer or the person himself?
For the night lighting on the Eiffel tower, this law is talking specifically about 'commissioned' work, where an artist is hired by someone else to take a photo. Normally the commissioner is granted unrestricted use of an image, but the copyright remains with the photographer. Before this law, another law must have made the copyright default to the person or body that commissioned the work.
For your second question, it was always the photographer. You gave them permission to take a photo of you (by word of mouth, or being in public). You never commissioned then, so the previous law doesn't apply. The eiffel tower is different because the owner of the work only grants the rights to take photos if the photographer agrees to a contract to their terms (I'm not too familiar with them).
For your second question, it was always the photographer. You gave them permission to take a photo of you (by word of mouth, or being in public). You never commissioned then, so the previous law doesn't apply. The eiffel tower is different because the owner of the work only grants the rights to take photos if the photographer agrees to a contract to their terms (I'm not too familiar with them).
A month ago I was walking around (not in Canada, but for the sake of argument, let's say it was) taking pictures when a gentleman called me over and asked if I would take a picture of him and his wife (technically, a commission) with his camera.
Now, who owns the picture I took?
Now, who owns the picture I took?
You own the picture. The gentleman didn't pay you - a request is not a commission nor a work for hire. Some concrete renumeration must occur.
The Eiffel Tower is in France, not Canada. French copyright laws don't apply in Canada. Afaik, we don't have any provision in Canadian copyright law that allows the subject of a photo to claim ownership over that photo, regardless of whether that photo is a person or a copyrighted work.
> who owns a photo of person? the photographer or the person himself?
The photographer.
The photographer.
What happens when you photograph something that someone else owns the copyright to? Eg: If I photographed a piece of artwork, do I own the copyright of that image? A good enough camera and some editing afterwards could produce a pretty excellent digital copy of said piece of art, even though it's technically a photo.
What about video? If I record a movie with a cam corder do I now own the copyright to the video I made and can distribute it legally?
What about video? If I record a movie with a cam corder do I now own the copyright to the video I made and can distribute it legally?
A creation can simultaneously attract its own copyright protection (if sufficient labour/skill has been expended in its creation) whilst at the same time infringe a third party copyright.
In the above examples, if there is a substantial reproduction of the original artwork notwithstanding the subsequent manipulation, there would be a prima facie case of copyright infringement.
In the above examples, if there is a substantial reproduction of the original artwork notwithstanding the subsequent manipulation, there would be a prima facie case of copyright infringement.
> photographers in Canada: as of today, you now officially own the copyright to all your photographs regardless of whether they were commissioned.
Dosen't this make it impossible to hire a photographer to take photos for you?
Dosen't this make it impossible to hire a photographer to take photos for you?
Of course not. It all depends on the terms you two agree to. They can retain the copyright or assign it as appropriate. It simply defaults to them.
Can you help us understand what you are asking? I am having trouble finding a connection between your question and the quote you provided.
No, it is the same in Germany and for a long time. Over here, you cannot transfer the copyright to your code/photos, but you can transfer usage rights. Of course, people still get commisioned to take photos or write code.
It is not really a big deal, in practice things mostly work as in the US.
It is not really a big deal, in practice things mostly work as in the US.
[deleted]