>In the United States, at least, the copyright corresponds to the date of
>publication-
But one needs to remember that the term "publication" as used in the legal
system is construed very broadly to include public display. Thus, if a
photographer sends a brand new photograph to a stock agency to be marketed;
it is considered for purposes of copyright registration to have been
published even though no one ever licensed the use of that photograph and
the stock agency never actually even put the image in their catalog ( they
only listed it by number and category with a description). The fact that it
was intentionally available for public display via the stock agency is
enough to establish the images publication.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:00 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and
Link...
Berry wrote:
>
> If Jay Maisel has not shot film, except for one roll, during the past
year,
how is it that all of the images are copyright 2001, yet most are from film?
> I guess the copyright does not correspond to the date the image was shot?
In the United States, at least, the copyright corresponds to the date of
publication--although the work does have a de facto implication of copyright
protection when it comes out of the camera (there are probably court cases
on this, but that's not my field).
Best regards--LRA
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at
