Comments on: Copy — right? http://arunraghavan.net/2008/12/copy-right/ Extremely pithy tagline here Thu, 17 May 2012 17:09:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: Arun http://arunraghavan.net/2008/12/copy-right/comment-page-1/#comment-9860 Arun Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:38:11 +0000 http://nemesis.accosted.net/blog/2008/12/copy-right/#comment-9860 <p>That makes a lot more sense, of course. Thanks for pointing it out! I've updated the post.</p> That makes a lot more sense, of course. Thanks for pointing it out! I’ve updated the post.

]]> By: Joe Buck http://arunraghavan.net/2008/12/copy-right/comment-page-1/#comment-9859 Joe Buck Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:28:19 +0000 http://nemesis.accosted.net/blog/2008/12/copy-right/#comment-9859 <p>Read it again:</p> <p>'You own copyright to all photos of yourself (caveat: see fair use): “In the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.” '</p> <p>The key phrase is "for valuable consideration". This means that if you paid a photographer to take a picture of you, you own the copyright, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It doesn't mean that all of the random people in a crowd scene own the copyright to a news photograph.</p> Read it again:

‘You own copyright to all photos of yourself (caveat: see fair use): “In the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.” ‘

The key phrase is “for valuable consideration”. This means that if you paid a photographer to take a picture of you, you own the copyright, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It doesn’t mean that all of the random people in a crowd scene own the copyright to a news photograph.

]]> By: louiswu http://arunraghavan.net/2008/12/copy-right/comment-page-1/#comment-4828 louiswu Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:20:37 +0000 http://nemesis.accosted.net/blog/2008/12/copy-right/#comment-4828 <p>So can Digiprove be used in India? i.e., is it admissible in judicial proceedings over here?</p> So can Digiprove be used in India? i.e., is it admissible in judicial proceedings over here?

]]> By: Anonymous http://arunraghavan.net/2008/12/copy-right/comment-page-1/#comment-4827 Anonymous Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:13:43 +0000 http://nemesis.accosted.net/blog/2008/12/copy-right/#comment-4827 <p>Official copyright registration is not available in most countries, as the basic rule (according to international convention that nearly every countries are signatories to) is that you own copyright from the moment you record it (write it, save it to a file etc.). As you rightly point out it can be used as evidence that you own this content (unless someone else can show that they had it first). Same thing is achieved through services like www.digiprove.com</p> Official copyright registration is not available in most countries, as the basic rule (according to international convention that nearly every countries are signatories to) is that you own copyright from the moment you record it (write it, save it to a file etc.). As you rightly point out it can be used as evidence that you own this content (unless someone else can show that they had it first). Same thing is achieved through services like http://www.digiprove.com

]]>