

Canadian Photographers Now Officially Own the Copyright to All of Their Photos - jonah
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/07/canadian-photogs-now-officially-own-the-copyright-to-all-of-their-photos/

======
unavoidable
Somewhat related but lost in the cheering from the photographers is that this
law also now makes the act of defeating DRM systems illegal (or more
precisely, it is copyright infringement simply to get around DRMs or to
distribute tools that do so).

~~~
jonah
Hopefully this [0] will be rectified via constitutional challenge.

"Many experts believe that the government's decision to adopt one of the most
restrictive digital lock approaches in the world - it creates potential
liability without actual copyright infringement - renders the provision
vulnerable to constitutional challenge." [1]

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4771752>

[1] <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6557/125/>

~~~
unavoidable
Although I would like to see that happen, I think the argument is a big
stretch. The constitutional challenge depends on the assertion that there is a
free-standing right to access information, even if it is privately produced.
Geist and other scholars are of course in favour of this interpretation, but I
don't think it has been adopted by courts anywhere yet.

------
_seininn
Doesn't this create a conflict with other copyright laws such as the one
related with the night lighting of the Eiffel Tower? Who owns the copyright to
such photos?

And on a related note: with this law, who owns a photo of person? the
photographer or the person himself?

~~~
spc476
A month ago I was walking around (not in Canada, but for the sake of argument,
let's say it was) taking pictures when a gentleman called me over and asked if
I would take a picture of him and his wife (technically, a commission) with
his camera.

Now, who owns the picture I took?

~~~
potatolicious
You own the picture. The gentleman didn't pay you - a request is not a
commission nor a work for hire. Some concrete renumeration must occur.

------
doesnt_know
What happens when you photograph something that someone else owns the
copyright to? Eg: If I photographed a piece of artwork, do I own the copyright
of that image? A good enough camera and some editing afterwards could produce
a pretty excellent digital copy of said piece of art, even though it's
technically a photo.

What about video? If I record a movie with a cam corder do I now own the
copyright to the video I made and can distribute it legally?

~~~
grabeh
A creation can simultaneously attract its own copyright protection (if
sufficient labour/skill has been expended in its creation) whilst at the same
time infringe a third party copyright.

In the above examples, if there is a substantial reproduction of the original
artwork notwithstanding the subsequent manipulation, there would be a prima
facie case of copyright infringement.

------
lotu
> photographers in Canada: as of today, you now officially own the copyright
> to all your photographs regardless of whether they were commissioned.

Dosen't this make it impossible to hire a photographer to take photos for you?

~~~
jonah
Of course not. It all depends on the terms you two agree to. They can retain
the copyright or assign it as appropriate. It simply defaults to them.

