photo copyright

shaun_from_Africa

Collabora wrote: »

no i was employed directly with them, just that as you are the one taking the photos then the copyright belongs to you regardless if you are employed or not, so the employer needs the photographer to sign over any copyright to them.

Collabora wrote: »

So the Trinity Mirror Group is wrong and yet again MSE are right

Have you considered the possibility that it is actually you who is wrong because according to the "Copyright. design and patents act 1988" (The current legislation covering this subject

11
First ownership of copyright.

(1)The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.
(2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1, or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary

In this Part “artistic work” means—

(a)
a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/11

Collabora

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that it is actually you who is wrong because according to the "Copyright. design and patents act 1988" (The current legislation covering this subject






http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/11

press photographs are not classed as artistic work. i will speak to my contacts at Trinity Mirror and say they are wrong because MSE say so

bod1467

You had a temporary contract of employment - you implied this yourself. My comments related to people with permanent contracts of employment, and I suspect that is what the legislation Shaun points to relates to.

Collabora

bod1467 wrote: »

You had a temporary contract of employment - you implied this yourself. My comments related to people with permanent contracts of employment, and I suspect that is what the legislation Shaun points to relates to.

No it was a permanent contract with that 1 employer. I was on graveyard shift for 3 years

shaun_from_Africa

Collabora wrote: »

press photographs are not classed as artistic work. i will speak to my contacts at Trinity Mirror and say they are wrong because MSE say so

As you are obviously not going back your claim up, are you going to ask your contacts to provide a link to the Copyright design and patents act showing that press photographs are not classed as artistic work?

bod1467

Collabora wrote: »

No it was a permanent contract with that 1 employer. I was on graveyard shift for 3 years

So it wasn't a contract for 3 years (agreed at the outset)? Or a contract for 1 year renewed annually? (Or some other similar arrangement)

So you were a permanent employee who either decided to leave after 3 years, or was made redundant after 3 years?

(Just clarifying, so we're both clear on our mutual understanding of what constitutes employment and what constitutes contract work).

Collabora

bod1467 wrote: »

So it wasn't a contract for 3 years (agreed at the outset)? Or a contract for 1 year renewed annually? (Or some other similar arrangement)

So you were a permanent employee who either decided to leave after 3 years, or was made redundant after 3 years?

(Just clarifying, so we're both clear on our mutual understanding of what constitutes employment and what constitutes contract work).

neither I was a permanent employee, who signed a contract to have over copyright to Trinty Mirror Group, the reason i left after 3 years was due to a road accident one night on the way back to newspaper office which busted my knee and left my colleague who was driving in a wheelchair

JReacher1

Collabora wrote: »

neither I was a permanent employee, who signed a contract to have over copyright to Trinty Mirror Group, the reason i left after 3 years was due to a road accident one night on the way back to newspaper office which busted my knee and left my colleague who was driving in a wheelchair

The poster appears to have been banned from the forum so sadly your discussion has come to an end!

DoaM

Indeed it has.

It would seem someone* didn't like that poster's posting style and so decided to do a bit of vindictive reporting, which has led to a temporary PPR. (Rather than judge any claims on merit, the forum team seem to have taken the easy way out).

*Not necessarily anyone in this thread.

JReacher1

DoaM wrote: »

Indeed it has.

It would seem someone* didn't like that poster's posting style and so decided to do a bit of vindictive reporting, which has led to a temporary PPR. (Rather than judge any claims on merit, the forum team seem to have taken the easy way out).

*Not necessarily anyone in this thread.

It's not going to be temporary if you register another account to carry on an argument! I'm sure that is frowned upon