<div>All of these issues are highly dependent on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. For example:</div>
<div>According to the Israeli law until 2 months ago, the owner of a photo was the owner of the negatives, independent of the photographer himself. Hence, if you bought the negatives of the photos from your photographer, it was as if you implicitly agreed that you bought the "reproduction rights" from him. This law (which was based on the British law from 1911) was somewhat ancient, and in the digital photography age it was more difficult to say who owns the negative.
<div>Two months ago a new Copyright Law was passed in the Israeli parliament, which states that an ordered word would be owned by the creator, as long as it wasn't otherwise agreed - explicitly or implicitly. This vague phrasing leaves much space for legal uncertainity, which we hope will be filled by the court.
<div>More interesting section of the new law is the one that stipulates that if the work was a portrait or a photograph of a family occasion or a private event, and was made according to an order, the default owner of the copyright will be the orderer (unless agreed otherwise). A look at the bill commentaries reveals that the assumed privacy concerns are the reason for setting a different default ownership when dealing with a family/private event. Furthermore, in this specific section the law does not state "unless otherwise agreed, explicitly or implicitly", which brings us to the assumption that an agreement in such circumstances must be explicit and in writing.
<div>However, the "family event" exception is relevant only to "portrait or photographic works" and not to cinematographic works - which, again, leaves much uncertainty regarding videographic works.</div>
<div>Re CC involvement - as far as I know and understand, the legal uncertainty in this privately-ordered-works does not cause, most of the time and in most jurisdictions, a chilling effect that prevents people from making copies of the photos/videos of their family events; I think that any intervention/clarification of legal rights and standing of photographers in this field would cause more damage than good (professional photographers would insist on their copyrights more than they do now) - and IMHO this is not something CC should promote.
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 21/01/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">drew Roberts</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Monday 21 January 2008 10:06, Matthew J. Agnello wrote:<br>> > So, one solution is to seek out photographers who will even go as
<br>> > far as<br>> > assigning copyrights to the individuals in the photots.<br>><br>> This is certainly a possibility. It still requires a piece of paper<br>> when presented to third parties. Even if a person came to me at work
<br>> and swore the photographer signed his or her rights over or that the<br>> photographer swore not to assert copyright over the photo, I couldn't<br>> copy the photo until I had the paperwork backing that up.
<br><br>And how do you determine which photos need such paperwork and which don't?<br>><br>> Now, the reason I'd choose a CC license in this case would be simply<br>> because the deed is easier to understand -- I think that is its
<br>> greatest strength in these cases.<br><br>Sure. It is just that a fqamily might prefer to have the copyrights assigned<br>to them rather than simply licensed to them.<br>><br>> > Would the family want the photots under a CC license, or would they
<br>> > prefer the<br>> > copyrights be assigned to them? A CC license would give rights to<br>> > third<br>> > parties which the family might not wish to do.<br>><br>> It's possible to have a license a work to only an individual (or in
<br>> this case, a family) under CC without having it apply to anyone else.<br><br>I would not think that is possible. If it is, I would think it would lead to<br>major confusion and the possibility should be eliminated in future licenses.
<br>(You know, perhaps it is and I am thinking too much of the SA license which I<br>prefer. So, if possibly, perhaps the fix would only be needed for SA works. I<br>need to ponder this more deeply.)<br><br>> The easiest way to do this is to preface it in a contract that says,
<br>> "This license applies exclusively to the Smith family and those acting<br>> on its authorized behalf. Signed, Me." As far as I know, this has not<br>> been given any weight in court, but I know third parties such as my
<br>> workplace would accept it.<br><br>And even in such a case, were they to authorize anyone, would that undo the<br>contract?<br>><br>> > One question that interests me is that the photographer generally<br>
> > gets the<br>> > copyright on the photograph he shoots, but does the cameraman get the<br>> > copyright on the footage he shoots?<br>><br>> Hard question. I think it depends very much on the specifics. I know
<br>> that generally speaking third parties treat professional video the<br>> same way they treat professional photography: they assume ownership<br>> and require a release to copy it. Because of the gray area, I am very
<br>> careful with what I do with the footage if it isn't specifically for<br>> the project,<br><br>I agree that being careful is the wise choice.<br><br>> and I'll always ask beforehand about using the footage in
<br>> a promotion. A court would probably need to examine the specifics to<br>> decide if the creative work were a "work for hire" or not.<br><br>Even in the case of still photography, is the photographer always the one who
<br>presses the shutter? Or is the photographer sometimes the one who arranges<br>and directs the composure of the shot and shouts now and has someone else<br>press the shutter?<br><br>> "Work for<br>> hire" means you're acting on the copyright holder's behalf and do NOT
<br>> own the work. However, this usually means you're employed full time by<br>> the employer, and this is not the case for a wedding video.<br>><br>> Either way, the purpose of the paperwork is to make third parties feel
<br>> better. The easiest paperwork to understand that I know if is a CC<br>> deed with the legal code as an option (and most probably would not ask<br>> for it). And to make it apply to only the one family, all you have to
<br>> do is say so.<br>><br>> Best,<br>> // Matt<br><br>all the best,<br><br>drew<br><br>><br>><br>> ----------<br>> Matt Agnello<br>> <a href="http://www.hungryfilmmaker.com">http://www.hungryfilmmaker.com
</a><br>> < <a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a> ><br>><br>> On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:<br>> > Would the family want the photots under a CC license, or would they
<br>> > prefer the<br>> > copyrights be assigned to them? A CC license would give rights to<br>> > third<br>> > parties which the family might not wish to do.<br>><br>> !DSPAM:4794b55f230141804284693!
<br>_______________________________________________<br>cc-community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community">
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>---------------------------<br>Elad Wieder