Re: Copyright

Not being an attorney, I can't expose a legal position. But having been a 
photographer, published in magazines and photographing often famous people, I 
can tell you what I think is acceptable.

Mr. X has a point, if I am understanding the story correctly. Photographs 
should be the copyright of the photographer. But the "owner" of subject in 
them must give their permission for the use of the image.

So, if I were to photograph a painting or a person and use it for commercial 
reasons (like a Web site), I need to have the permission to do so by the 
subject or owner of the subject.

If you are photographing something for news and putting it in a newspaper, 
magazine or  on TV, you don't need permission, assuming the photography was 
done at a public event or the person knew you were there photographing. The 
gray area comes up when people are surreptitiously photographing, for 
instance, a "star" walking around on the star's property and the photographer 
had to climb a tree to see over the wall to take it.

But the photojournalistic photos that are allowed for news are not allowed if 
you publish it in a book, which is then a commercial venture. So, if the 
photographer who is photographing Mr. X's exhibit is being used for bona fide 
news, it is OK. If, for any other reason, it is not without Mr. X's 
permission (which may require payment).

Janet
Web Site Designer
Electronic Portfolio:
http://www.zagdesign.com

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA