In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:38:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? She does. You paid her to get one copy or multiple copies from her only. You did not buy the right to copy her 'artistic' works. I have an even sillier example - I have in my possession a picture of an overturned logging train in Cass, WVa. taken in the very early 1900s. I took it to a professional photographer to have copies made for the rest of the family. I asked for the resulting negative and he claimed the negative was copyrighted as his work. Be careful when hiring anyone for this kind of thing - you may not be buying what you think you are. Bev

Bev, I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was it "work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the original, you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies for sale. Bob Juch http://www.Juch.org -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:38:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? She does. You paid her to get one copy or multiple copies from her only. You did not buy the right to copy her 'artistic' works. I have an even sillier example - I have in my possession a picture of an overturned logging train in Cass, WVa. taken in the very early 1900s. I took it to a professional photographer to have copies made for the rest of the family. I asked for the resulting negative and he claimed the negative was copyrighted as his work. Be careful when hiring anyone for this kind of thing - you may not be buying what you think you are. Bev