Copyright infringement - the idiot guide

[Plato]

Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry v. Éditions Vice‑Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an invasion of privacy. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.

There are always conflicting "rights" and that sounds like the result of a photographer or multiple photographers having gone too far. The pendulum has swung back.

Doesn't matter. The point is that the precedent was set that taking pictures of someone in a public area can be considered in a court of law to be an invasion of privacy. The legal system is not a swinging pendulum.

I agree that that was your point. My point is that it sounds like the result of a photographer or multiple photographers having gone too far. It's certainly not the first time that one individual or possibly a handful of individuals have ruined things for the majority. I could care less if you agree with my "swingin pendulum" sentence.

 

[skieur]

In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.

Same for Canada.

skieur

That, my friend, is completely wrong, in the case of any commissioned or ordered work. The following is a direct quote from Section 13.2 of the Copyright Act:

"Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."


For any commissioned work by any photographer in Canada, their contract with the client (or person/entity ordering the work) must state that the photographer is the first owner of copyright (and better yet for the photographer, forfeiture of the client's copyright), otherwise the person or entity paying the photographer owns copyright. (And no, keeping your RAWs and calling that the "original" won't save you in this case. That's why CAPIC and PPOC are pushing to have this legislation changed.)

That said, if the work isn't commissioned, yes, you own copyright.

Furthermore, in the US, it's not a case of you not owning copyright if you don't register. You own copyright as soon as an image is registered, but your ability to sue and claim damages for any infringement is severely limited in the US if your images are not registered. If you don't register your images, even though you hold copyright, you won't be able to take the case to court (talk about messed up).

Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry v. Éditions Vice‑Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an invasion of privacy. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.

In any case, the best source of information that doesn't require you to have an understanding of law (or at least, far less of one than what one needs to understand the court ruling above), is AmbientLight.ca.

Irrespective of what you said, you don't have to register a copyright in Canada, since copyright exists as soon as the work is published and there is no system for registering copyright in Canada.

Moreover the main difference in Canada is the need for a photographer's contract, which most professionals employ anyway.

As far as the invasion of privacy is concerned, it really depends on how you take the photo and what is in the frame.

skieur