Tim, You're right. I had not looked at it from her side of the camera. But obviously you are correct about all the equipment and expense. So if she chose not to share any of the pictures they are lost to the ages. And those who were not there and therefore didn't purchase a photo can never acquire one except by inheritance since she informed more than one person that she does not keep the negatives which seems a little odd. I realize the difference in quality but for genealogy and family purposes of sharing photos of ancestors, family gatherings, tombstones and/or similar events and items, I can see a place for both the professional photographer and the amateurs. I have several boxes of old family photos taken down through the years by any number of relatives and they are priceless to me. Whoever took the pictures obviously never gave copyright issues a second thought. I will, of course, respect the professional photographer's copyright and will no doubt continue to hire her to take the good shots for those who want them but for the sake of family down the line I'll also encourage others to take whatever pictures they want to. And this next year I will do the same. At least those pictures will be available for my kids and grandkids and great grandkids which to me is the real purpose of the photographs in the first place. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Tim Kemp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy By law, you hired her to do the picture, which she did. You paid her for the copies. However, unless you arrainged it beforehand, she owns the copyright and the negatives. Most photographers would never agree to do it any other way. Federal law recognizes the photos as a creative work and therefore copyrighted to the photographer. I can assure you, after many years of shooting weddings and model portfolios, that their is MUCH more to it than being there and pressing a button. If that was all there was to it then why even pay someone to do it? Why not just let someone in the group who doesn't want to be in the picture take them. Of course you must remember.... They won't be using $1000-$5000 worth of state of the art camera that will do things your family camera could not think of doing. They won't have at least one more just like it in their camera bag for backup. They will not have several thousand more dollars tied up in lenses, flashes, umbrella reflectors to fill in shadows on peoples faces, and a multitude of other expensive equipment. They will not have years of training and experience. They'll probably off-center most pictures with heads cut off in many. The composition will be terrible with a tree growing out of one person's head and a telephone pole growing out of another. You'll have half the people's faces washed out with overpowering sunlight while the other half are invisible in deep shadow. I could go on for another page or two, but I think you see the message. They are not simply showing up and pressing a button. Bottom line, unless you pay them quite a bit extra for it the photographer owns all copyrights on the photos, and has earned them. That being said, I normally gave my subjects the negatives and a signed copyright release, but ONLY after they had purchased a large amount of prints through me. Don't expect, though, to find many photographers who are willing to do this. Rex Kirby wrote: >I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures >for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my >intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the >reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the pictures. > >Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the group >shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't make >a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more >confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of >photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part of >the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their >camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. > >Rex > ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&ta rgetid=5429