A rule against copyrighting AI art will be unworkable.
I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?
If you deal with the photographer that you own the images from the wedding and that’s in the contract, yeah. Otherwise, traditional copyright law would apply, and the photographer gets the rights.
Under federal law, if there is no agreement to the contrary, your wedding photographer, or any photographer for that matter, owns the pictures that they take. This means that they have the sole right to copy and distribute the photos, including potentially the right to sell the photos, to publish the photos in any form, and to reproduce the photos either electronically or in a printed hardcopy version. And even more importantly, copyrighted material cannot be reproduced or copied without permission from the photographer.
…
Generally, photographers do not like to offer their services to clients through a Work for Hire Agreement. This may be partly related to their desire to require clients to purchase prints and books directly from them. Many photographers, however, do not want to completely relinquish their rights because they may be trying to build or protect their reputation.
If you are a couple getting married in Australia, the copyright law automatically assigns copyright to you and not the photographer. However, most professional photographers will have their clients sign a contract that reassigns the copyright to the photographer. Now let’s be very clear, this is not the photographer being shady or deceptive in anyway. It’s simply to protect their work, the photographs in this case, that they created.
Generally, photographers do not like to offer their services to clients through a Work for Hire Agreement
If I was getting married, I’d find one that will do a work for hire agreement. It’s my wedding, I want to own the photos. Nobody else should be profiting off them (aside from what I paid them to take the photos).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
If he had deliberately caused the monkey to take that photo, he might have owned the copyright.
If you pay a photographer to take photos at your wedding, you own the copyright for those photos - not the photographer.
Unless it is explicity specified in a contract, no you wouldn’t. Most people don’t.
If you deal with the photographer that you own the images from the wedding and that’s in the contract, yeah. Otherwise, traditional copyright law would apply, and the photographer gets the rights.
Unless you specifically pay for the rights transfer (and it’s not cheap), the photographer owns the copyright.
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/intellectual-property/copyrights/legal-guide/wedding-photos-does-your-photographer-legally-own-them
Granted, this a US take and may vary by country…
https://www.thecoffeetablebook.com.au/what-do-a-bride-and-groom-need-to-know-about-copyright-when-booking-a-wedding-photographer/
If I was getting married, I’d find one that will do a work for hire agreement. It’s my wedding, I want to own the photos. Nobody else should be profiting off them (aside from what I paid them to take the photos).
You probably actually wouldn’t when it’s 5 times more expensive.