Curious Legal Question (Sort of OT)

[SteveB]

But Trademark and Copyright laws are a basic license agreement.

No they are not. They are intellectual property rights. ("intangible" rights) A license is a legal agreement between parties. A copyright doesn't require more than one entity.

This is where I started having problems thinking thru this. I have a right to my image. Newspapers, magazines, radio, tv etc. and such have to ask permission to use my name and likeness. The same is true for the NFL and NFL merchandise as an example.

No, you don't. If you hire a professional photographer to shoot your wedding, and they take a picture of you and your spouse, the photog still owns the copyright in that photo and they can do whatever they want with it, without your permission.

Here's an overly-simplified version:

Copyright generally protects a particular implementation of an idea.
Trademark generally protects an actual idea.

 

[Mobay45]

....and if I want to take a pic of Chuck in a thong riding his lefthanded Bongo like a pony, as much as EB and all of us might hope to god to stop it, there really isn't anything that can be done.

So Paul, do you want me to call Chuck and broker the deal for you?

 

[Steve Dude Barr]

So, when I post one of Jack's photos on The Pit do I owe him money or Sterling???

 

[SteveB]

So, when I post one of Jack's photos on The Pit do I owe him money or Sterling???

In that situation, I believe you owe everyone who views the picture some compensatory damages...

 

[Steve Dude Barr]

In that situation, I believe you owe everyone who views the picture some compensatory damages...

LOL...yeah, yeah....put it on my tab and Happy Mooseturds Steve!

 

[maddog]

No, you don't. If you hire a professional photographer to shoot your wedding, and they take a picture of you and your spouse, the photog still owns the copyright in that photo and they can do whatever they want with it, without your permission.

I'm understandnig a bit more. To chip away at it a little more: Since I hired the photographer can't I make the stipulation that the copyrights are to be mine. This is a situation, to me, much like I work for a corporation and as such they have rights to certain aspects of my intellect ( or do they? ). Also, I've given that photographer permission by hiring him, but what about somebody just out snapping pictures? Don't I have a right to my privacy? (This gets back to what Paul was speaking to.)

Thanks for the patience. I'm starting to understand. Hopefully I'm not being annoying. Just genuinely curious and genuinely lazy not do go do some reading of my own.

 

[oddjob]

LOL...yeah, yeah....put it on my tab and Happy Mooseturds Steve!

Back to Mooseturds again??? Just no pictures of you licking mooseturds (and even if you posted them, would we have to pay compensation?)

 

[smallequestrian]

: Since I hired the photographer can't I make the stipulation that the copyrights are to be mine. This is a situation, to me, much like I work for a corporation and as such they have rights to certain aspects of my intellect ( or do they? ). Also, I've given that photographer permission by hiring him, but what about somebody just out snapping pictures? Don't I have a right to my privacy? (This gets back to what Paul was speaking to.)

When you hire a professional photographer you may have the option of retaining the copyright, but it will cost you big time. Depending on what kind of photography it is, the photographer makes a lot of his money by selling the prints to you.

With the corporation you are getting into legal contracts involving intellectual property and it gives me tired head. Some companies have it, espescially in the tech industry, where if you create/invent anything within the industry that you're company is involved in it is comes under the rights of the company whether you made it at home or at the workplace. Some places you maintain control as long as your didn't use company materials or time. There is a whole lot of issues involved with this kind of stuff and the legal validity of such contracts is constantly being tested in court.

This stuff gives me tired head.

 

[maddog]

This stuff gives me tired head.

Fair 'nuf. Back to real stuff like bass playing.

 

[Steve Dude Barr]

I have been in negotiations with a pro-photog regarding a bass coffee table book project I've had in the works for the past few years and hope to bring to fruition within the next 12-18 months and it's all open to negetiations. We settled on a price where I own all rights to the photos.

Depends on the contract.

 

[SteveB]

Sure you can negotiate for a photog (or anyone else for that matter) to sell their copyright to you. But you don't get it automatically.

As for corporate things, the general way things work are like this: If you're being paid as an employee to create things that are copyright-able or trademark-able, those rights generally belong to whoever is paying your salary. So, a drug researcher who creates a new drug to fight cancer, while on the clock for Eli Lilly for example, will generally not own the right to that drug, but the company will. This is a "work for hire" -- i.e. the person is getting paid specifically for that reason.. to develop intellectual properties.

Some situations allow the employees to hold the trademarks etc. but they have contract which obligate them to license the rights to the employer (usually exclusively for a period of time).

In the case of a photog, you'd think that since YOU are footing the bill you'd get the rights, but this is more a case of contracted services.. the photog is not your employee. Believe me, you don't WANT to be an employer unless you have to!

 

[maddog]

Dragging this back up due to finding this post:

http://www.ernieball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1988&highlight=nikon

in case anybody else is interested.

 

[smallequestrian]

Dragging this back up due to finding this post:

http://www.ernieball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1988&highlight=nikon

in case anybody else is interested.

Just in case you didn't hear, PRS ended up winning that fight. One of the reasons, among many, being the Smokey bar argument. Where if you were watching a band in a smokey bar and you see someone playing what appears to be a Les Paul, it actually benefits Gibson. There was some other issues why the injunction was reversed but a sensible Judge helped as well.