Bob there is a big difference between a licensed use for an image, and a work for hire. Work for hire is an entirely different cup of tea. --- On Fri, 7/4/08, Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Greenberg v. National Geographic > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 11:15 AM > Thanks. > > For a while I was the regional photographer for my > employer. Ir was > always my understanding that since I was being paid by them > and they > were covering all my costs the photos I took were theirs to > do with as > they pleased. We had no formal contract but the job > description I > agreed to included "other duties as assigned." > > Bob > > James Schenken wrote: > > Bob: > > > > Here is the opinion. > > > > > http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516964.ENB.pdf > > > > I've read some of it ( it's quite long ) and > my take on the gist of it > > is that a publication that make and electronic copy of > its own > > publication that is electronically identical to the > original ( > > contains the complete context, allows the user / > viewer to page back > > and forth etc. ) is completely within the current > copyright law. A > > publisher can make as many copies of the original work > ( here : > > Magazine issue ) as desired unless there is some > limitation in the > > original contract with one or more of the > contributors. > > > > This decision merely clarifies that this rule applies > to electronic > > copies as well. > > > > Cheers, > > James > > > > At 02:20 PM 7/3/2008 -0500, you wrote: > >> Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in? > >> > >> Bob > >> > > James Schenken > > > > -- > ///// > ( O O ) > --------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de > w8imo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I plan to live forever. So far, so good......
