Getty and the Stone Collection

[Peeved]

Good discussion here...
I agree with Innocent Infringer's assertions about the pricing.

If the photographer "works for hire", then the hiring company (or hiring person would own copyright of the photos).
If the terms are not "work for hire", then the photographer would retain copyright.
Anyway, most photographers aren't worth anywhere near $900 dollars a day in my opinion.

Here's an article about the economics of photography and the stock image industry that's surely of interest:

http://penumbraproject.com/2011/10/20/surviving-as-a-photographer-in-the-new-economy-2/

The butthurt is palpable.

S.G.

Interesting read Soylent. It is indeed hard to compete with "free" with regard to being a photographer in this economy and times. Even the billion dollar porn industry is suffering due to the amount of "free stuff" available on the net not that I am heartbroken over this.  It will be interesting to see where it all ends up as there does not seem to be any end in sight. All the more reason for the trolls to come up with a new "business plan" consisting of extorting huge dollar amounts from potential alledged infringers.

I also found it interesting the comparison to working at Starbucks where one would make more money verses making a $100 a day shooting photos. Personally I'd rather be shooting but that's just me. No offense to Starbucks.
 

With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed.
 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I got the copyright. He took photos of my products. But it may be different with product photos I did not try other photos yet. 

Yes, in a case of a  work for hire..same would apply to my and my field, if I was under the employ of SG's Butthurt Inc. and developed a site, SG would automatically own the copyright, because I was on his payroll.

My question is did the photographer actaully sign over a release of copyright for you? If not I don't think you would technically own the copyright..Unless he was on your payroll that is.

::edit:: From the US copyright site:

What is a work made for hire?
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle. The exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

[Khan]

"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."

We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. 

With regards to the photo industries:
I think that there is nothing stable outside there; everything is changing fast. Look at the travel agents 15 years ago and today. Or look at the company which produce the blackberry phone (RIM). They had really good times and now they are almost broke. And I am convinced that GI needs the extortion letters to survive.

[Peeved]

"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."

We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. 

With regards to the photo industries:
I think that there is nothing stable outside there; everything is changing fast. Look at the travel agents 15 years ago and today. Or look at the company which produce the blackberry phone (RIM). They had really good times and now they are almost broke. And I am convinced that GI needs the extortion letters to survive.

Well that's good then so this was a case of "work for hire". Good for you, bad for the photographer with regard to future royalties.

[SoylentGreen]

Hi Khan, I hope that I have interpreted your statement correctly.

However, "Copyright Ownership" isn't based on the "type" of photos or "subject matter" in the photos.
It's based on the contract that you have with your photographer.

Again, if the photographer simply works as a consultant, he'd own the copyrights.
If he's on your payroll as an "employee", your company would own the copyright.
But, you may choose to write up any contract that you choose; this would supercede the above.

"Trademark Infringement" may come into play with some photos, but that's something different.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."

We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. 

Not trying to be a hard ass or anything...but...
Did he specifically provide any sort of form transferring the copyright to you? or was it just in the contract...just like a contract which would be separate, it would need to be signed and dated by both parties...

::edit:: something similar to this as I can't find my pdf that I use.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/copyrightinc.pdf

[Khan]

No problem.

It was def. the copyright. In this case I needed the copyright.

[SoylentGreen]

wut?

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/8159/reactionwut132105543814.jpg

S.G.