The Copyright Zone
Feb 16, 2019 18:13:14 #
While browsing the shelves at my local book store, I stumbled across this book titled, "The Copyright Zone." It answers a lot of questions I thought were really simple. This book is a good and easy read for photographers. Please check it out. You'll be glad you did.
Feb 16, 2019 18:25:22 #
Feb 16, 2019 18:29:26 #
Scruples wrote:
While browsing the shelves at my local book store, I stumbled across this book titled, "The Copyright Zone." It answers a lot of questions I thought were really simple. This book is a good and easy read for photographers. Please check it out. You'll be glad you did.
When was it published? Federal copyright law changed in 1976, 1988, 1992, 1994 and a lot in 1998.
Feb 16, 2019 18:50:17 #
Bipod wrote:
When was it published? Federal copyright law changed in 1976, 1988, 1992, 1994 and a lot in 1998.
That is what I was going to ask as well, knowing it Law is updated every few years.
Feb 16, 2019 19:03:31 #
Angel Star Photography
Loc: Tacoma, WA
lamiaceae wrote:
That is what I was going to ask as well, knowing it Law is updated every few years.
Looks like the latest is the 2nd Edition with a publish date of February 2015. It's available on Amazon but no Kindle version.
To Scruples...thanks for the information!
Feb 16, 2019 23:04:58 #
Some more info for all. The first edition of "The Copyright Zone" was published in 2010. The second edition was published in 2015.
This book was written by Edward C. Greenberg, JD and Jack Reznicki. It is a quick read and very enlightening. But, copyright laws do change. It is due for a third edition.
This book was written by Edward C. Greenberg, JD and Jack Reznicki. It is a quick read and very enlightening. But, copyright laws do change. It is due for a third edition.
Feb 17, 2019 07:28:15 #
lrn2bgd
Loc: Ct.
Scruples wrote:
Some more info for all. The first edition of "The Copyright Zone" was published in 2010. The second edition was published in 2015.
This book was written by Edward C. Greenberg, JD and Jack Reznicki. It is a quick read and very enlightening. But, copyright laws do change. It is due for a third edition.
This book was written by Edward C. Greenberg, JD and Jack Reznicki. It is a quick read and very enlightening. But, copyright laws do change. It is due for a third edition.
Go to B&H Event Space for the most recent video from Greenberg and Reznicki during 2018. The laws were again changed and explained by these two gentlemen. You tube under B&H may have the same video.
Feb 17, 2019 07:32:49 #
Bipod wrote:
When was it published? Federal copyright law changed in 1976, 1988, 1992, 1994 and a lot in 1998.
Right. That was my first thought. If copyright is that important to you, you should see a copyright lawyer.
Feb 18, 2019 14:57:15 #
Copyright used to be simple and used to protect authors and artists. Congress has changed that.
Photographers need to be vigilent and may need to lobby Congressman---otherwise what happened to
music artsists in 1999 may happen to them.
The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, enacted as part of Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113
Stat. 1501 (1999), added sound recordings to the list of commissioned works that may be considered
works made for hire.
As a result, if a music artist accepts money from a record label toward covreing the cost of recording,
the copyright now belongs to the label, not the artist (in the absence of some agreement to the contrary).
The artists is treated no differently than a session player: paid for his services and no royalities.
If the artist was also the songwriter, then he (or his music publisher) still owns rights to the song--
but not to the recording. He will only be entitled to the meager "mechanical royalities" paid to
songwriters (about a nickle a copy).
This is one of the reasons that only a handful of established artists can make a living from recordings.
Everyone else has to tour constantly. The economics of touring are brutal: costs keep rising, but revenues
depend mainly on the size of the room the artist can fill plus "merchandise sales" (tee shirts, etc.)
Since photographers are ofen paid to take photographs, or sell their photographs to their client,
it would only require adding one word, "photographs" to the law and most photographs would
be considered works-for-hire.
A side-effect of treating recordings as a work-for-hire is to make the artist a "statutory employee"
of the label. If that happened to phtographers, then their clients would have to pay payroll taxes,
FICA and Worker's Comp premiums for the photographer or risk committing a crime.
It may be unthinkable, but it can happen---it already did to music artists--despite
the fact that many of them are famous celebrities.
How much does the Professional Photographers of Ameirca contribute to re-election campaigns?
Is it more or less than AT&T Time Warner, CBS, Fox, Comcast, Charter Communications,
Viacomm, News Corp, McClatchy and Hearst?
Photographers need to be vigilent and may need to lobby Congressman---otherwise what happened to
music artsists in 1999 may happen to them.
The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, enacted as part of Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113
Stat. 1501 (1999), added sound recordings to the list of commissioned works that may be considered
works made for hire.
As a result, if a music artist accepts money from a record label toward covreing the cost of recording,
the copyright now belongs to the label, not the artist (in the absence of some agreement to the contrary).
The artists is treated no differently than a session player: paid for his services and no royalities.
If the artist was also the songwriter, then he (or his music publisher) still owns rights to the song--
but not to the recording. He will only be entitled to the meager "mechanical royalities" paid to
songwriters (about a nickle a copy).
This is one of the reasons that only a handful of established artists can make a living from recordings.
Everyone else has to tour constantly. The economics of touring are brutal: costs keep rising, but revenues
depend mainly on the size of the room the artist can fill plus "merchandise sales" (tee shirts, etc.)
Since photographers are ofen paid to take photographs, or sell their photographs to their client,
it would only require adding one word, "photographs" to the law and most photographs would
be considered works-for-hire.
A side-effect of treating recordings as a work-for-hire is to make the artist a "statutory employee"
of the label. If that happened to phtographers, then their clients would have to pay payroll taxes,
FICA and Worker's Comp premiums for the photographer or risk committing a crime.
It may be unthinkable, but it can happen---it already did to music artists--despite
the fact that many of them are famous celebrities.
How much does the Professional Photographers of Ameirca contribute to re-election campaigns?
Is it more or less than AT&T Time Warner, CBS, Fox, Comcast, Charter Communications,
Viacomm, News Corp, McClatchy and Hearst?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.