US Law is quite strightforward about who owns copyright initially.
It's the creator of the piece of intellectual property. After that a
skillion things can happen and some of them are also covered in the
law.
So, at the initial moment, the maker of the photograph is the holder
of the right to license copying by US Law. The maker of the painting
holds the right to license copying of it by US Law. If the maker of
the painting wants a photograph of the painting s/he should agree
with the photographer to permit the photographer to make a photograph
of the painting. Then the photographer should agree with the painter
about how that photograph can be used by both the photographer and
the painter.
If the painter wants the painting on a billboard, the photograph of
it is worth a lot more to the photographer than if the painter just
wants to put it in a little picture frame on the mantel If the
painter is going to have inkjet prints of the painting for sale to
drive up the price of the original, the photograph will be the source
from which the prints will be made, and becomes more valuable to the
photographer, since the painter is gaining income from the sale of
each print.
Copyright really just comes down to the money, guys.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, press photography
http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/
