Copyright Law

There are two unique and separate rights involved when publishing a photograph in advertising.

The first is copyright, this belongs to the person who created the artwork: the photographer. The creator can at his own discretion license or extremely rarely in the case of a family portrait transfer the copyright to you. If the studio licenses the photograph to you they can use the photograph for their own use, including advertising so long as complies to the second right.

The second right belongs to the subject(s) of the photograph and that is one of likeness. Unlike copyright which is rather clear cut, since likeness rights are ones of privacy and can be a lot more fuzzy. Typically speaking the photograph would need to clearly identify you and there would have to be an expectation of privacy. If you signed any contracts with the photographer, I would check your copies for a model / likeness release. If you cannot find one in your copies requesting a copy of your signed release from the studio would likely be the first step in resolving this matter.

***********

Yes, so if you are worried about your privacy always ask to buy the copyright to the photos and buy the negatives. There is no legal remedy for you because whoever takes the picture has the exclusive copyright of the image unless you buy it from them. Hopethis helps!

***********

If you did not consent, I would say no, and virtually no photographer will ever sell you the rights to his work. Most likely, you consented without realizing it. Check your agreement/contract that you must have signed before the photo session took place and discuss your concerns with the studio. If you did not consent in any way, (i.e. there is no contract), it was in poor taste to use your image without consulting you first. In this case, if you object civilly, you may be able to get the advertising suspended or be compensated for it. In the case of photography, copyright ownership prevents the client from reproducing any images created so as to avoid further payment for work done. It does not mean the photographer has carte blanche to use the images any way he sees fit. Most standard contracts stipulate that the studio retains the right to promote, use, alter, etc. as they see fit.

As with most legal questions the answers is... it depends. Works published between 1923 and 1964 and not renewed are now in the public domain. For works published after 1964 renewal was automatic provided that, (until 1989) a copyright notice was provided.

Copyright law in New Zealand is constructed very similarly to the UK/Australian/US standard.
In New Zealand, copyright is an automatic unregistered right that comes into existence every time an original work is created, published and performed.

No special action is required for protection to exist.

No; it was renewed by his widow, Beatrice Lushington.

Original creative work is almost always copyrighted unless explicitly explained that it is not. For instance, work under creative commons or something put into public domain would not necessarily be under copyright laws.

If you are the owner of a copyright you can sue someone who infringes upon your copyright. If you are not the owner, you can report the infringement to the person (or business) who is. The police will not investigate the crime, it can only be dealt with by litigation.

publishers date is when the work was first printed... copyright date is when the work was first copyrigted... i don't believe they are different to often but I could be wrong... copyright dates usually have the the copyright symbol next to them (that little c in the circle) so you can tell them apart

Each "fair use" is established on a case by case basis. There is no predetermined amount of copyrighted material that can be used.

US Copyright Law sets out criteria that has to be considered before something can be judged to be "fair use"

# The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes # The nature of the copyrighted work # The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole # The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The basis for copyright law in the US was laid in Article 1 section 8 clause 8 of the Constitution.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

From a legal standpoint, it's a group of laws designed to protect the rights (and incomes) of creators. From a moral standpoint, it's essentially the same: protecting the rights of creators. Because copyright violations are so easy and so frequent, law enforcement has no chance of monitoring and prosecuting every violator; thus, it functions more on the "honor system," relying heavily on individuals' ethical and moral codes to ensure the rights of creators are respected.

You can't remove copy protection from a CD that have copy protection on them. This is because CD's are read-only, you can't modify any data contained, you can only read from it. The way copy protection works is that the data on the disc is embedded with a special type of code that prevents any copying. You could try "ripping" the CD, instead of recording directly from disc to disc. Some copy protections only work against one type of copy protection.

An endoscope is a form of a microscope that is inserted into the cavity of the body to view organs. Many physicians use this device in medical procedures because it provides a clear and close-up image of the organ.

Copyright only protects the expression of an idea, but a patent protects the idea itself (assuming it's an invention or process). You can write about, paint, or take a picture of a machine, but anyone can build it and sell it. But if you patent it, you have the exclusive right to build and sell it.

Copyright stops you from devaluing other people's intellectual property by copying, altering, distributing, or performing/displaying it without their permission.

Because notification is not required for protection, it is safe to assume that any image you encounter is protected by copyright unless explicitly specified otherwise. For an example of this kind of statement, see the NASA page linked below.

Submit only videos to YouTube that do not contain material copyrighted by someone else or get the necessary permission before you post.

The Berne Convention, which most countries' copyright laws are based on, does not distinguish between types of creative work. In the US, the applicable law is US Code Title 17, and in the UK, it's the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Using others' intellectual property tends to be more effective and efficient than constantly creating your own--reinventing the wheel, as it were. The only concern is that your use should be legal, either through an exemption in the law or (more likely) permission from the rightsholder.

I'm trying to imagine a world where you can never use anyone else's intellectual property. You could never read a book or magazine--you'd just have to write your own. There would be no hit songs, because radio stations would have to create their own new songs, and besides, you'd have to invent a radio to listen to it on, anyway. We can't use this website, or the patented computers we're reading it on.

Sharing ideas is vital. You just don't want to mess with the creator's rights when you do it.

It means that that piece of work is freely usable by any member of the public without having to pay royalties and/or fear of being the subject of a (non-frivolous) patent, trademark or copyright infringement lawsuit.

Software copyright is the relatively recent extension of copyright law to machine-readable software. It is used by proprietary software companies to prevent the unauthorized copying of their software. unless the asker was thinking about content-protection technology imposed on digital audio and video including cd's dvd's and digital content downloadable from the internet?

: Plagiarism can be more than simply an 'academic crime.' If the publication that was plagiarized was copyrighted it is also a violation of Civil Law. ___ Leaving the legal aspects aside, the key point for work handed in at schools and colleges is that it is supposed to be original: it is supposed to be your own work, done by you. Plagiarized assignments are about on a par with (supposedly) scientific papers with faked results.

Here are the published filing fees of the U.S. Copyright Office as of 2006. These are subject to change, and also note that private companies or Web sites might do the registration for you for an additional fee. To enforce a copyright in a different country, you may be required to register there as well. * For a single work (Form TX, PA, VA, SR, or SE): $45 per application * For a group of serials or newsletters (Form SE/ GROUP): $25 per issue ($50 minimum) * For first appeal of denial of registration: $250 * Registration of a group of published photographs: $45 * Recordation of a document (including assignment of ownership or exclusive licenses): $95 (plus an additional $25 for each additional 10 titles) Here are the published filing fees of the U.S. Copyright Office as of 2004. These are subject to change, and also note that private companies or Web sites might do the registration for you for an additional fee. * For a single work (Form TX, PA, VA, SR, or SE): $30 per application * For a group of serials or newsletters (Form SE/ GROUP): $15 per issue ($45 minimum) * For a group of updates to a database, covering up to a 3-month period (Form TX): $30 per application