Someone told me that some places like walmart etc.. have their photos on certain kind of paper so they can not be scanned and copied after you have them taken there. cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:15 PM 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&targetid=5429 > >