Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Thanks for the kind words about the web-site. Quite a lot of it is 'platform neutral' on film/digi, with stuff like the Arles reviews, 'Colour for Colour's Sake' or even (God help us all) 'Bokeh'. There are even a few digi reviews there (M8, M8.2, M9) to say nothing of lenses used on digi. But 45 years shooting, almost 40 of them exclusively with film, leaves its mark...

Yes, I am sure you are right that as soon as the statue is begun, copyright is established. The intriguing question is whether it is renewed as the sculpture progresses, and on my reading (and I am sure yours too), it is. At that point, of course, it is always open to the sculptor to say, "I sold it before it was finished..."

Typical moot stuff in a law school. Of curse, if I were feeling REALLY legalistic, I'd suggest that an unexposed film is still tangible, and that as the image can be viewed with the aid of a device or machine (a developing tank or minilab) that the latent image is copyright too. With the print, one might then use (c) 1977, 2011, for the negative and print. All fun stuff.

Cheers,

R.

ltruex Loc: Waco TX

KeithF199, I noticed you're from West Texas is that geographical or from the City of "West Texas" just a few miles north of Waco Texas? Kind regards. Larry

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Well, having won a copyright suit which took 2 years of my time (full time,) I am rather expert on USC Title 17 these days.

Basically, what you shoot, is your copyright. However, if you do not make it official, as in, send in the image(s) and payment to the Copyright Office....

If someone, say, because of newsworthy timeliness, takes an image you shot, like a mass produced headshot not bearing your copyright, and hands it over to the Associated Press and United Press International, the result of which is your photo being seen by everyone, in every country, in every form, print and digital: you have no recourse. Way back when (a time before the Internet,) this happened to me concerning a shot I did of Donna Rice when Gary Hart was killing his political career. The story broke, and her agent gave the shot away. Bingo, my image, everywhere on earth, overnight. Oh well...

Having cemented in stone your copyright with the government (which was at least stamped on the back of the photo,) and you get a minimum of $100,000, with a few issues, like, does the violator have deep pockets?

Best practices are to EDIT your images, and simply copyright those with real value. Much of what we shoot has not much real value.

Finally, copyright litigation, or mediation (more common) involves the balance of access and similarity. In the old days, there were physical things called transparencies and prints, and there was no Internet. It was a more slam dunk world. Today, we post all our stuff online. At 72 dpi, and with lossy JPEG, you will mainly need to deal with your stuff going elsewhere online, but it is when others claim to have shot your image, this is where having the RAW original is the smoking gun. You can prove, with RAW, you took the shot. Problem is, most wannabe photographers do not have the deep pockets needed to pay damages. Things go moot pretty quickly.

Putting it the OTHER way, if you and your copyright violator met, signed a delivery form in blood (both of your blood on the form,) and the violator is a DEEP POCKET, the blood oath will be dismissed as trivial and invalid the instant you go to litigation. Then, the deep pocket just waits for you to give up. It's all about the lawyers. Deep Pockets can afford hundreds of them. Against you. So you need a REALLY good lawyer. Cha-ching!

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

Hummmm.....so it's a billable hours thing ...hummm.

You are spot on!

Cornishpete Loc: Illinois

Aw Roger, it be bleddy 'ansom to hear from a Cornish lad. I 'bin over here in mid Illinois for nigh on twenty years and do miss the old place a bit but I do go back 'ome every year for a month. I soon get back to driving on the proper side of the road but for a while the locals do think I am some sort of emmet who can't handle the scrumpy.
Was born and raised in St Austell, out Mount Charles. Went to St Austell grammar School and graduated (that's the fancy word for 'left school' they use over 'ere as you know) in 1955 and went up London to college and work.
I am bravish embarassed about saying I speak 'english' but here in Edwardville Il. hardly anyone would know where Cornwall is' I tell 'ee.
I will be off to your web sites dreckly.
Regards, Pete Marks

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Dear Pete,

Damme, cap'n, St Austell Grammar was my mother's old school. She was a Reynolds. They ol' furriners don't properly know where God's Own Country'm really to.

I went out Californie in 1987, but it didn't take. Still got the Californian wife (married in 1982) but we'm in France now. Well, 'tis more like home than England. Lived in Kent 1992-2002 but twasn't proper, so we did move. Too many ol' Lunnoners in Cornwall. If thee'st ever in France, let I know.

But I do hope 'ee can get over for to my web-site faster'n dreckly. Have 'ee seen the bumper sticker, "Cornishmen do it dreckly"?

Note for foreigners (i.e. non-Cornishmen): 'dreckly' (= directly) has been translated as 'mañana, but without anything like the same sense of urgency'.

Cheers,

R.