my photographer has gone bankrupt and so i cant obtain copies from him for my pictures , so the question means can i now take those pictures i have and have them copied somewhere else???
if not why not as he is no longer in a position to hold the copyright as he cant give me copies??
2007-01-30 08:25:33 · 11 answers · asked by bethsmum2004 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Just because he can't give you copies doesn't mean he doesn't still hold the copyright. Those photos are his artwork and are legally his (you signed an agreement, I'm sure). What you should do is contact the photographer and ask him to send you a letter of permission granting you access to copy the photos without repurcussions. He may ask for a small fee for this service, which he is entitled to have.
2007-01-30 08:48:59 · answer #1 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the photographer took the photos you are asking about, he owns the copyright, you could have bought the copyright from him.
But if he is now unable to reproduce the photos for you, you can request he allows you to have them reproduced elsewhere, he has no use for the photos if they are of you, or your family, it would only be reasonable for him to let you have them reproduced elsewhere if they are of a personal nature.
If you were to paint a picture for someone, and then went bankrupt, you would still hold the copyright of that picture, and if you wanted to you could sell that copyright to raise funds for your creditors.
The photographer could only reasonably sell the copyright to you, assuming the photos were taken for you.
But apart from the legal position, if you need copies, and he hasn't secured his copyright on the back of your photos, you should be able to get copies elsewhere.
2007-01-30 08:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by FairyBlessed 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because he can't give you copies doesn't restrict his ownership of the copyright.
You can get a letter from him where he gives you permission to copy them yourself. If he was a reasonable person he might do that if you asked, particularly if they are pictures that you are going to use for your own purposes.
If they are pictures that you intend to sell or use to make money, I could understand why he would not want you to copy them elsewhere unless he was provided a royalty on them.
2007-01-30 08:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by SwimsALot 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, i do no longer think of so. GM is in debt to many people - including the staff who've contracts for pensions and reward. The financial disaster court docket will make sure what part of each debt would be paid. They somewhat won't get a hundred% of what's owed to them - yet neither will anybody else. It feels like if GM capitulates with the government, that the shareholders gets the shaft, and the unions and the government gets the majority (ninety%!?). In that mild, financial disaster seems the only honest determination. EDIT - What with regard to the "commonplace people" like instructors and cops whose retirement money are invested in agencies like commonplace autos? that isn't the federal government's spectacular to deem some investments extra powerful than others. financial disaster court docket is the only honest determination, whilst the government is obviously opting to assist that is constituency.
2016-12-16 17:10:25 · answer #4 · answered by herzog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I barely understand, except to say that I'v ebeen through bankruptcy. The creditors are allowed to place a lien on any monies expected, no?
And further, I can't understand why a bankruptcy would mean forfeiture of a copyright. The bankruptcy can only ask whether any monies are expected at the time of filing and/or closure.
Work produced thereafter cannot have been known to create expected royalties- expectation can only begin with circulation of new material.
I can't see how the bankruptcy would affect your case.
Don't try it, please.
2007-01-30 08:36:24 · answer #5 · answered by starryeyed 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the copyright still exists in the image. You could however contact him and ask if he minds you making copies.
2007-01-30 09:49:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically no, just because he's bankrupt doesn't mean his copyrights are void. Maybe he's bankrupt because people made their own copies.
2007-01-30 08:35:33 · answer #7 · answered by johN p. aka-Hey you. 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The copyright is vested in the bankrupt's trustee, who can still enforce it for the benefit of his creditors. Your situation hasn't changed.
2007-01-30 11:44:53 · answer #8 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No you need the copyright for the photo's, i had some photo's done & the firm went bust, but thank goodness i bought the copyright when i bought the photo's.
2007-01-30 08:45:12 · answer #9 · answered by april 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
IF THEY ARE COPYRIGHTED, YOU MUST GET PERMISSION FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO VIOLATE HIS COPYRIGHT. HE STILL OWNS THE COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF HIS PHOTOGRAPHS AND YOU AGREED TO THAT WHEN YOU HAD HIM TAKE PHOTOS OF YOU.
YOU MUST ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW THE RELEASE OF THE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL!
2007-01-30 08:51:06 · answer #10 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋