Jump to content

Copyright article by Sal Shuel


Recommended Posts

Just for info, a rather long article by Sal Shuel (Leading authority on copyright). On a Canon information website.

 

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/interviews/understanding_copyright_law.do

 

Some useful information can be gleaned.

 

 

Allan

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any UK pictures as I have never been there, but if I came to the UK took pictures and then traveled back to the US, which copyright would apply UK or US?  What if I took pictures in the UK then came back to the US and sold them to a US buyer? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law of the country of publication would apply.

However as both countries are Berne signatories there wouldn't be any practical difference.

 

Except in the UK there is no copyright registration option and no real concept of punitive damages for infringment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Great article thanks Allan

Mostly good except the bit about sending an infringer a bill. THat limits your claim. The EPUK advice is much better.

 

 

I agree. I recently used the EPUK approach (with a bit of informal guidance from an IP lawyer friend) to win $1,000 within a month of infringement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law of the country of publication would apply.

However as both countries are Berne signatories there wouldn't be any practical difference.

 

Not quite. Publication is different from copyright.

The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The law of the country of publication would apply.

However as both countries are Berne signatories there wouldn't be any practical difference.

 

Not quite. Publication is different from copyright.

The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business

I answered the question Marvin asked. If he took his UK images home and published them in the US, US law would apply.

If my UK images were registered in the US, I could pursue statutory damages against a US infringer.

 

(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:

      (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country;

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The law of the country of publication would apply.

However as both countries are Berne signatories there wouldn't be any practical difference.

 

Not quite. Publication is different from copyright.

The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business

I answered the question Marvin asked. If he took his UK images home and published them in the US, US law would apply.

If my UK images were registered in the US, I could pursue statutory damages against a US infringer.

 

(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:

      (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country;

 

 

Nope you didnt.

Copyright for photography is for unpublished works. Copyright applies at the time you press the shutter which is unpublished, the published clauses only apply to published works.

You mentioned publication which isnt necessary for copyright (clause (4)© of Geoffs link)

 

There is a huge difference in the US in registering copyright for published and unpublished works. The US copyright registration has little to do with copyright, more to do with the legal process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The law of the country of publication would apply.

However as both countries are Berne signatories there wouldn't be any practical difference.

 

Not quite. Publication is different from copyright.

The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business.

 

 

 

Why don't you answer his question, then?

I think my advice was quite practical.

 

I did, a couple of posts ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you gentlemen, an interesting discussion on copyright etc in various countries seems to be developing.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info, but I probably won't be getting to the UK anytime soon.  It cost to much for a European vacation, so guess I will just do the Southern US.  I guess you guys in the UK have it covered well anyway.  Licensing might be a bigger problem in different countries than copyright.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At a high level, the article is interesting, but it conflates a whole lot of distinct legal issues under the heading of "copyright" which is incorrect.   Many of the examples given of where you can't take photos have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law, but are really examples of property or contract law.  

 

For instance, the general proposition under copyright law in most countries is that photographing a building or a landscape is not a breach of copyright law.  How interested parties have got around this (mainly to extract licence fees for commercial use) is to impose restrictions on rights of entry.  This is a feature of property (i.e. trespass) or contract law, not copyright law.  Likewise, trade mark law might be used to "fill the gap" not covered by copyright.  Take the Sydney Opera House.  Under copyright law, there would be nothing stopping anyone selling photos of the building.  Why this is restricted is because the whole Sydney foreshore around the Opera House (and Sydney Harbour Bridge) is managed by an authority that imposes restrictions on what you can do while on the Authority's land, including not taking photos of the Opera House for commercial sale.  The Sydney Opera House Trust has also tried to get around the lack of copyright protection by obtaining trade marks which depict the shape of the building.

 

The end result may be the same, but it is a mistake and potentially confusing to lump it all together under the copyright label. The reason this matters is because the consequences - both exceptions and / or remedies - may lie elsewhere and not under copyright principles.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for info, a rather long article by Sal Shuel (Leading authority on copyright). On a Canon information website.

 

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/interviews/understanding_copyright_law.do

 

Some useful information can be gleaned.

 

 

Allan

 

The list of photographic subjects to "steer clear of" (e.g. Schools, Trafalgar Square, identifiable people, etc.) seems overly cautious to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.