Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Your Rights Online

Ask Slashdot: Should This Photographer Sue A Hotel For $2M? (google.com) 254

Unhappy Windows User writes: An Austrian photographer was contracted by the luxury [hotel] Sofitel in Vienna to photograph the bar with an amazing view over the skyline. He was paid for his time (4200 euros) and arranged a three-year internal usage contract for the photos. After the contract expired, he still found his photos being used -- on external sites too. He is now suing for 2 million euros, based on each individual usage.

My question is: Is this the real market value of his work...? It seems like the largest economic contribution to the work was from Sofitel, who allowed access to the property and closed it to customers. I don't have any issue in a photographer wanting to be paid fairly for his work, and asking for perhaps double or treble the original price for the breach of contract to match what an unlimited license would have cost. [But] with this money they could have employed a professional for a month and automatically obtained full rights to the work...it seems like this guy is trying to take advantage of an oversight by a large corporation, never to have to work again.

Here's the original article in German and an English translation, and it's one of those rare cases where the copyright belongs to an individual instead of a massive entertainment conglomeration. But do you think the photographer should be suing for 2 million euros over this copyright beach?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Should This Photographer Sue A Hotel For $2M?

Comments Filter:
  • dont know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30, 2016 @03:33PM (#52019789)

    Dont know. Ask a lawyer. Which he appears to have done.

    Sounds like they are in breach of contract. But a German judge will have to work that out.

    • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @03:53PM (#52019885) Homepage

      Wow, it's been years since I saw a first post basically just say everything that needs to be said and end discussion. I don't know if I should be impressed, or if this "ask slashdot" is just that stupid. But I'm not going to try to get that answer. LOL thanks

      • Not quite so simple (Score:4, Interesting)

        by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:35PM (#52020085)

        Of course _HIS_ lawyer said sue, that's how Lawyers make money. Sue for 20gigabazillion dollars probably gives the gig away, so "sue for 20million". _HIS_ lawyer will be taking a nice fat check regardless of outcome, but generally they also take a percentage of the settlement.

        I'd be willing to bet that the companies attorney said "he can't win", because they get paid to defend the company.

        Is there a moral limit on what he should get if the company broke contract? Absolutely, but morals don't get paid too much attention to any longer.

      • Re:dont know (Score:4, Informative)

        by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @06:13PM (#52020475)
        I believe the submission is asking, not from a legal perspective (which won't be decided here in any case), but from an ethical one.

        It does seem to me that the photographer is trying to take advantage of the situation. If he accepted payment of X for 2 years of use, accepting the same or less (no more work involved) for an addition 2 years seems appropriate. OTOH, if the photo is so good that it the customer wants to continue using it, perhaps they should pay more. But my suspicion is that, if he wanted more, they'd be perfectly happy to have someone else take a new photo, and probably a "work for hire" so they could use in perpetuity.

        Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks. Individual against corporation shouldn't matter, sentiment around /. seems to be against extortion when it's corporation against individual. This isn't any different, other than the parties being reversed. So, is the answer based on ethics/principles, or on "screw the big guy?"
        • Re:dont know (Score:4, Interesting)

          by MikeKD ( 549924 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @07:18PM (#52020659) Homepage

          Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks.

          Unless this can be shown to be a willful breach of contract and infringement of the photog's copyright. That can trigger punitive and/or larger fines (at least in the US, I think--not sure about German law).

        • Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks.
          The original deal was about using them "in doors".

          Now they infringe by posting them all over on the internet.

          That was even in the summary, no actual need to read the linked story.

          So: using an IP on media you did not even contract to is by definition (read the law) an copyright infringement (german law obviously). Question is now the amount of damage.

        • Know (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Reibisch ( 1261448 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @08:51PM (#52020935)

          Wrong.

          The lawsuit isn't for continued access to work; the entity that initially hired him and agreed to the terms had an opportunity to negotiate continued/expanded access either before the contract was executed or in the intervening three years. The lawsuit is because the entity elected to ignore the previously negotiated contract. Intentional or accidental is for a court to decide.

          If the award for breach of contract was simply the fee that would have been due, then there would be no incentive to bother honoring contracts -- you could simply pretend it didn't exist, not pay until someone noticed, and then get off with the same cost as you would have paid had both parties been diligent. No, lawsuits relating to breaches of contract are for additional damages (and courts subsequently award said damages) to punish the offending party as a deterrent to those who would shirk the responsibilities of a contract in the first place.

          • THIS. They had every chance to negotiate an agreement to use the images for more than the three years and/or for other uses, and chose not to do so. The license expired and they chose to use the images outside the terms of the license anyway, so clearly copyright infringement has happened.

            Therefore penalties and other costs should apply, not the least of which is a license for the use they actually did have. And perhaps punitive costs, court costs, damages, etc. It would have been smart for the hotel t

        • Re:dont know (Score:5, Informative)

          by Stephan Schulz ( 948 ) <schulz@eprover.org> on Sunday May 01, 2016 @03:04AM (#52021607) Homepage

          I believe the submission is asking, not from a legal perspective (which won't be decided here in any case), but from an ethical one. It does seem to me that the photographer is trying to take advantage of the situation. If he accepted payment of X for 2 years of use, accepting the same or less (no more work involved) for an addition 2 years seems appropriate. OTOH, if the photo is so good that it the customer wants to continue using it, perhaps they should pay more. But my suspicion is that, if he wanted more, they'd be perfectly happy to have someone else take a new photo, and probably a "work for hire" so they could use in perpetuity. Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks. Individual against corporation shouldn't matter, sentiment around /. seems to be against extortion when it's corporation against individual. This isn't any different, other than the parties being reversed. So, is the answer based on ethics/principles, or on "screw the big guy?"

          Did anybody actually read the original article [derstandard.at] (link to non-mobile version with images) in Der Standard? First, the photographer does not want 2 million from the hotel chain. The total estimated value of the copyright violation, including third parties, is 2 million. The current offer to settle is 1 million (plus legal fees, which are relatively reasonable in Austria) from Hovarth, and the hotel has already upped its offer to 400000. At stake is not simply that the hotel has used the photos for the intended purpose for longer than licensed, but rather that they have given out the high-resolution originals (claiming they own the copyright) to third parties for promotion - leading to one or the other of the photos to end up on 170 magazine covers and in newspapers like the New York Times, El Pais, and the The Telegraph.

    • Re:dont know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:06PM (#52019953) Homepage

      I think that Horvath did ask a lawyer and this is what the lawyer told him to do after he advised Accor of the infringement and they offered small sum which Horvath felt was unacceptable.

      I suspect that the strategy here is to ask big and wait for a settlement for a more reasonable settlement (plus legal costs). Asking big means that it gets picked up in the media and discussion boards (like /.) which makes the preferred course of action for Accor to settle before going to court (an apology isn't required as they have apparently already given one to Horvath) and make sure that there is a proviso stating that the photographer can't disclose the settlement.

      While I understand the submitter's outrage, I suspect that this is really a non-story; through an oversight a photographer's work is used inappropriately, the infringer apologizes and offers a small sum to see if they can make this go away. The photographer feels he's owed more, so he gets a lawyer involved to shoot for the moon and wait for a better settlement offer.

      All that's needed now is an announcement that the beef has been settled to both parties' satisfaction.

    • Re:dont know (Score:5, Informative)

      by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:09PM (#52019969)

      Also, currently the hotel chain is only offering him 300 euros for having erased his name as the main copyright holder, claiming the copyright ownership themselves (which was not part of the original contract), and given permission to 170 architecture and travel publications (including the New York Times, the Telegraph, and the Financial Times) to have reprinted his photographs without attribution.

      So is this worth 3 million euros? Probably not. But it certainly isn't worth 300 euros either.

      Both parties behaving like assholes is standard negotiation practice. It doesn't mean that either party will get what they ask for. It just means that negotiation has just begun.

      • Under german law you can not remove the name of the 'copyright' holder, regardless of contract.
        And you can not claim 'authorship' anyway ... as US calls 'copyright'.

        An 'creator/author' can give up his right to be explicitly noted on each 'copy' but not to be never noted or forgotten. Someone claiming it is 'his work' or 'his copyright' is always wrong and most of the time illegally (regardless of contract).

    • But a German judge will have to work that out.

      What? They aren't at it again, are they?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      Law != moral

      We might not be able to pass judgement on whether the photographer WILL get the money, but we can very well pass judgement on whether he SHOULD get the money. After all, as voters, us citizens are responsible for making sure judges get to judge on laws that represent our moral values.

      Regardless of what a judge might say, I think the price of 2 million euro per usage is way too much.
      Standing up for your legal rights is one thing, trying to abuse them to get rich is quite another.
      The only thing th

      • The only thing this photographer is doing, is making sure nobody will ever hire him for anything ever again; too much of a legal risk.

        There is no legal risk if you have half a brain. The hotel manager was an idiot to sign the original contract. If you hire someone to do any work that involves IP, you make darn sure the contract says "work for hire", and that the contractee has full rights to anything produced. If the photographer doesn't agree to the terms, then find another photographer, which should take about five minutes.

        • by delt0r ( 999393 )
          I did exactly this for my wedding photographer. I do think that photographers who own everything no matter what are kinda dicks, i don't really understand who they are still around. Considering most places would now demand to full rights handed over.
        • There is no legal risk if you have half a brain. The hotel manager was an idiot to sign the original contract. If you hire someone to do any work that involves IP, you make darn sure the contract says "work for hire", and that the contractee has full rights to anything produced. If the photographer doesn't agree to the terms, then find another photographer, which should take about five minutes.

          We're talking about European law here, though, under which workers have rights. If bad faith on top of IP theft can be shown, perhaps a payout like this might work in their system.

          To get this kind of legal payday, we would have to find a puddle of pee at Walmart to slip and fall in.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          The hotel manager was an idiot
          The idiot is you :D

          darn sure the contract says "work for hire"
          That concept does not exist in the EU (and plenty of parts of the world).

          and that the contractee has full rights to anything produced
          The contractee has not, as the law explicitly says so.

          Only in the USA copyright is completely retarded.

          If the photographer doesn't agree to the terms, then find another photographer, which should take about five minutes.

          The other one would just do, what is happening in this case. P

        • by Strider- ( 39683 )

          If the photographer doesn't agree to the terms, then find another photographer, which should take about five minutes.

          Being a good architectural photographer is a pretty rare skill. In most major markets there are usually only 2 or 3 who you would really trust to be able to produce photos of the calibre described. It's not just a matter of snapping a couple of shots and picking the best ones. It's a whole process of picking the exact right spot to take the picture, getting the lighting just right (either by modifying existing building lighting, adding additional lighting, etc...), ensuring the composition puts the space in

      • 2 million euro per usage

        I think it's 2 million in total. The summary says "based on each individual usage", i.e. the sum is based on how many times the image was used.

        However, the English translation is very difficult to understand, so I could be wrong.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      He was paid for his time, so it was work for hire, so not a copyright issue. It could be considered a breach of contract, but there is no contract details in TFA, so we can only guess. But that's for US copyright, I haven't studied international law.
      • "Paid for your time" does not mean "work for hire" in the U.S. If someone is not an employee, then only certain types of works can be works for hire: "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them

      • You did notice that we are talking about Austria and Germany and not the retarded US laws?

        But that's for US copyright, I haven't studied international law.
        Ah, you noticed ... my fault.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          And the necessary details to make a judgment are in the contract, which nobody posted, so we can't know, we can only talk in generalities (no matter how specific) as the details of this are not given here. And likely the contract, and laws covering it, are written in a language most here don't speak.
    • It is a contract, and I'm sure one way of interpreting it is that he is owed $2M for their over-use of his image.

      German courts are usually pretty level headed about awards, I'm sure they'll acknowledge his math and award something much more reasonable. If e4200 paid for his time and a 3 year internal use license, you might compute something like e2200 was for his time, e2000 for the 3 year internal license - a license in perpetuity for internal and external use might be reasonably assumed to be worth 10x t

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

      You can't be in breach of a contract that has expired. Of course if the contract clearly stated that ownership and rights of the photos remained with the photographer, then they are using them without his permission and could be liable. On the other hand if this wasn't clear (or clear enough) in the contract, ownership of the photos could belong to the hotel as a "work for hire".

      It's up to lawyers and courts to argue about. $2 million seems a bit steep and the guy seems a bit greedy. Usually greedy doesn'

      • ownership of the photos could belong to the hotel as a "work for hire".
        That concept does not exist in most parts of the world outside of the US.

        Artwork always belongs to the artist and the license to use it is restricted for ever to the contract. Ok, forever means 90 ears after death of the creator.

        Why would you become an artist if you have to make your living on "work for hire" and lose Your Art as soon as you have delivered it?

  • and by doing so broken a written contract then yes, he should get some financial recompense. Whether its worth 2M is another matter but thats would be for a court to decide.

  • An Austrian photographer was contracted by the luxury [hotel] Sofitel

    [But] with this money

    I wish the editors - I assume it's the editors - would stop highlighting every change - I assume that's what's being done - they make to a submission. It doesn't help with anything.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You dislike knowning where an editor, or submitter, has modified the original text / quote?

      The use of [ and ] characters allow the editors to modify material and make it clear what has been changed from the original.

      They are, typically, used for the following reasons...

      Clarification - Missing words, or additional [descriptive] words to add to the sentence, or item, being discussed.

      Translation - Onkel [Translation: German, Uncle]

      Indicating a change in capitalization - [W]e believe that there really are alien

  • by bhetrick ( 1812392 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @03:45PM (#52019845)

    If an an individual making a single copy of a work by a large company is $200k or so, why is a large company giving copies of a work by an individual to all comers (publishing it on the web) supposed to get a pass? Is it right? Obviously not. But this is the way the deep pockets want it, so that's the way it is.

  • by Diac ( 1515711 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @03:45PM (#52019847)

    He is only going by precedent set by the music industry for copyright infringement with charging for each instance of infringement instead of standard music rates which in the industry case would be the cost of a song or album. Why would a large corporation get away with large scale copyright infringement and simply settle for a standard contract amount after the fact.

    Oversight does not reduce your legal responsibilities or penalties.

    • He is only going by precedent set by the music industry for copyright infringement with charging for each instance of infringement instead of standard music rates which in the industry case would be the cost of a song or album.

      While I agree with the rest of your post, you've got the wrong price here... The music industry doesn't go after people who simply download a single copy, where they could claim that the damages are just the cost of a single song or album - they go after people who upload or distribute the album or song to others. How much does it cost to distribute a song? Do you think Apple pays 99 cents to put a song up on iTunes that they then sell to several million people? Of course not.

      It's tough to give an exact nu

  • from one file downloadedI must he can say the same thing.

  • Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @03:47PM (#52019853)

    Why not? Is there some stipulation that says only megacorps are allowed to sue for absurd amounts of money? If Sony can sue an individual for millions of dollars over a stupid song, then a photographer can sue a company for millions over a stupid photo.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Considering the insane amounts that companies go after individuals for where the power dynamic is reversed, then hell yes he should go after them for as much as he can. Whenever individuals do something wrong, no matter how minor, companies go after them for huge amounts way out of line with actual damages. They have the lawyers and the time and the money, and they use it to abuse those with none of those things. If the situation was reversed I have no doubt the company would be going after him for as much or more. But when the dynamic changes, and companies use things from individuals, they tend to abuse the shit out of it again, 'forgetting' to take things down, using without attribution or permission, or just straight up stealing work and IP. And then again, they have the time, money, and lawyers to get off easy, because most individuals they screw over can't afford to go toe to toe with them for as long as it takes to get results. I don't think this is right, by any means, by either the individual or the company. But while the company can and does do it, then what does the individual get by not acting the same way? The moral high ground is great, but in cases like this it doesn't make you a living. You just end up poor with your hard work being ripped off left and right. Screw that.

  • The hotel breached the contract and the copyright. In the US, that will result in treble damages of the value and use, plus potentially more due to the contract.

    Whether it's worth $2M or not is debatable. But this absolutely isn't what the summary implied, that the "photographer is lazy" or something. No, he's quite serious about his work being appropriately compensated and not pirated. This is being pirated, and being used for marketing, and so on an so forth.

    Most commercial contracts are written with a limited use. This photographer could not subsequently be selling this work of art, and if you look at the likes of Peter Lik (spell that correctly if you google it), the image sales alone could be worth more than $2M.

    The summary implied that the hotel was inconvenienced in order for the photographer to make this image, yet he could've easily rented out the room. However, the hotel could not have easily made the shot themselves. That's insulting to professional photographers everywhere. They actually do more than just push a button.

  • He did a job and provided them with photographs on given terms. They used the photographs beyond those terms. I'm sure there's some justification for the $2M figure based on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions, but it's not like he's actually going to get that.

  • by mbone ( 558574 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:15PM (#52020003)

    Statutory damages need have no connection to any actual damages, and generally they don't.

  • As there should be also damages for people copying the copies and such...

  • by TRRosen ( 720617 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:19PM (#52020007)

    I don't see a valid claim here because I don't see enough artistic content to make a copyright valid. It's just industrial work.

    • by delt0r ( 999393 )
      An interesting point. If they got new photos from a different photographer, would anyone be able to tell the difference? These are after all very generic photos with nothing all that artistic about setting your f-stop, focus and shutter speed. I have been to this place. It is a nice view, but not all that special or anything. quite a few places in Vienna get impressive views because you just not allowed to build very tall buildings.
    • It's just industrial work.

      You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and definitely no idea about what does into actual commercial photography.

  • He probably shouldn't be allowed to sue for that much, but then large rightsholders shouldn't be allowed to sue for the ridiculous amounts they sue for either. No matter, whether he should be allowed to or not, the law says that's what he can sue for since they infringed on his copyrights. Those are the rules the big corporations and rightsholders made, I don't see any reason why this photographer shouldn't play by them.

  • What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • They had a contract, one side thinks the other has breached that contract.

    Why do you care how how they determine the consequences?

  • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:30PM (#52020057)

    This article is a good example of the old rule on Slashdot and elsewhere, "when a title is a question, the answer is always ". And it is one of the very rare exceptions.

    Lawsuits, and prosecutions, always start by default with the maximum possible penalty. It's similar to submitting a bid for contract work: you sibmit a bid for as much as the market will bear, to do the maximum possible amount of work with the least resources, and then negotiate. It's very rare for the dollar figure in a lawsuit to bear more than a passing resemblance to any damages awarded or any negotiated settlement.

    As far as the law is concerned, this photographer has _excellent_ grounds for a very large lawsuit. The work was used in violation of the contract, it was used commercially, large scale abuse of the copyrighted material was involved, and the defendant has apparently admitted to some level of guilt. So of course the photographer should start with the maximum penalty in the lawsuit, so that they can reach a finding or a settlement that discourages similar abuses.

  • by radarskiy ( 2874255 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:37PM (#52020095)

    If you have never produced anything of value, any rights claim seems invalid.

  • Yes it is.

    Long answer, when you breach a contract you become at the mercy of the person who's product you are stealing beyond the contract date. I am betting he also has a letter to them asking, "you want to extend the contract so you can keep using the photos?" and they replied, "go stuff it in your arse" which drove him to ask for a very large amount.

    Plus requests are heavily adjusted by the judge, as well as lawyer fees. so after paying off the lawyer, and the taxes, he might just end up with 5000 t

  • by l0n3s0m3phr34k ( 2613107 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:45PM (#52020135)
    needs to find for the photographer. As a future deterrent, he should be granted the deed to the actual hotel itself, half the assets of the hotels owners, and get jus primae noctis in regards to the hotel employee's daughters of whomever was involved in this scandal.
  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @04:56PM (#52020175)
    The photographer charged Sofitel â4200 for the photos. He then discovered 170 magazine covers with unlicensed copies of his photos, and uses by 440 different parties.

    His lawyer has sent letters to all 440 parties, probably asking them for â4,200 each, would would add up to about 2 million Euros or Dollar (amounts are roughly the same). Anyone paying him could then turn to Sofitel for damages.

    And finally, Sofitel has offered â400,000 to make this go away.
    • by delt0r ( 999393 )
      Interesting. I lived in Vienna for about 7 years, and due to circumstance had an experience with the judicial system there. Such a court case would probably drag on for a long time.
  • First thing. You have to be able to afford the lawyer to take them to court. If you don't settle you have to go through with taking them to court. In three years you could win the case. Then you get another settlement offer. The company being sued files an appeal and the lawyer is instructed to draw out the process as much as possible in order to motivate you to settle. Lets say you win the appeal 5 or 6 years later. They appeal it again and then again and again as much as the legal system will allow. You m

    • What you describe is not the German court system. I assume it's not the Austrian court system either.

      He has apparently sent letters demanding payment to 440 different companies using his photos, asking each for a relatively small amount. If any of these cases goes to court, it will go through very quickly. And what a case: "I sold these pictures to Sofitel for 4,400 Euros. Which proves how much they are worth. This company uses them without paying me and mentioning my name, so I want the same payment fro
  • Typically, in a contract where you hire the photographer (pay his 4200 Euro expenses) to specifically take photos of certain things, it's a work for hire [wikipedia.org]. You're paying for everything, including the photographer's expertise and labor, so even though the photographer took the photos, the copyright belongs to the person or company paying for it. This is the way most of the entertainment and advertising industry works - with copyright being held by the hiring company as a work for hire. Though the usual rea
    • Typically, in a contract where you hire the photographer (pay his 4200 Euro expenses) to specifically take photos of certain things, it's a work for hire.

      No, that's not typical at all. Work for hire has to be explicitly agreed upon in advance, or can happen when the photographer is (for example) an actual employee of the company receiving the work (say, you're a staff photographer for a newspaper, etc). Otherwise, certainly in the US, almost all commercial work is definitely NOT "work for hire," and the rights to use the images are negotiated in a license.

      If the photographer is acting as an independent (pays his own expenses, shoots on his own time), then he'll retain his copyright and the company simply buys rights to those copyrights.

      No. The photographer retains the copyright because he created the images. Period. If he did so as part

  • According to the article, when he made contact with them without attempting to sue, they offered EUR 750 to settle. Now that there's a lawsuit, they're offering EUR 400k to settle. I feel confident in believing that had the suit been for EUR 400k, they would have offered less. Assuming the attorneys take 25% and reading that Austria takes 50% on income above EUR 51k, I don't think he's going to retire on this.
  • As stated, he appears to have a case. However, in my experience, the concept of a limited license time for a professional photography job is *extremely unusual*, Normally, if you do a job, the employer owns the results and can do with them what they want forever.

    • However, in my experience, the concept of a limited license time for a professional photography job is *extremely unusual*

      It's not only not unusual, it's very common. It's routine.

      Normally, if you do a job, the employer owns the results and can do with them what they want forever.

      But he wasn't an employee of the company. He was contracted as an outside professional service provider, and unless the contract took the very unusual step of explicitly stating that it was "work for hire," or there was contractual language that actually conveyed copyrights (not just licensed use), then no - the photographer retains the copyrights, and the conditions under which (and the period for which) the client can use the images is simply spe

  • did the hotel chain not insist on owning the rights to the images? If you're hiring someone to produce something you will use to promote your business, would you not want to own it outright? No comprendo.

Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries

Working...