ownership
Posted by Mehndiman on May 12, 2001 at 22:08:03:
In reply to: samantha@eastonwest.co.uk posted by a question of ownership on May 11, 2001 at 09:34:36:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.That said, getting hennaed would likely be the same as commissioning
an artwork. That is, you paid for the art to be done; as far as
copyrights go, you own it. If the artist was using someone else's
copyrighted design without permission, *the artist* is liable for
the misuse (they broke the law when they copied it for money). If
the artwork is the artist's own design, they of course own the
copyright on the design....but they effectively sold the rights to
that particular expression of that design when they accepted money
from you in exchange for it (legally known as a "work for hire").
As far as photography goes, the copyright on a photo is owned by
the photographer who took said photo (or, if the photographer is
accepting compensation for his/her work, it is a "work for hire",
and the copyright is owned by whomever is paying the photographer).
The caveat here is if the subject of the photography is itself
encumbered by other rights. Photos of people generally require a
model release for publication; photos of places likewise require
a property release. The exceptions to that are for "news" style
photos (a news photographer at a public event needs no model
releases) and things for personal use (i.e., you're not selling
the resultant photos).
Putting a photo on a webpage requires the consent of the copyright
owner of the photo (generally, the photographer). The photographer
needed the consent of the person (or owner of the thing) that (s)he
photographed. If an artist drew a design on me in exchange for
compensation, I own the design that is on me (note: that's different
from owning the original design...I just own this particular
expression of it). Therefore, I can give permission for it to be
photographed, and the photographer can give permission for it to
be used on a website. The only place it gets sticky is if the artist
didn't have permission to execute the design in the first place (the
copyright holder of the design didn't consent).
So. If you make sure that the artist has permission to execute a given
design, and if you pay the artist to execute the design on you, and if
you photograph it yourself, you are free to use the resultant photo in
any manner you see fit.
And one more time, just so we're clear: I'm not a lawyer; the above
is simply my interpretation of stuff I've heard lawyers say. Before
initiating or defending any legal action, it would be wise to consult
a real lawyer. (:
Follow Ups