ZeusS said:
No, that's why I mentioned later on in my earlier posting that it depends on your agreement clauses when it's ben sold/passed on to the client when the job is done.
Well, what you mentioned in your earlier post was that the rights belong to the photographer UNLESS there is an express agreement otherwise.
What i am saying is that unless there is an express agreement that the rights belong to the photograhpher, the rights belong to the commissioner of hte work. if there is no agreement or the parties are silent abt it, it belongs to the commissioner.
Then again, you used the term "commissioned" which takes on a differnet meaning with your client. In this particuliar siatuation, it's normally pre-agreed and understood that the works changes IP ownership once it's been handed over. In commissioned work, normally a very high fee is charged thus including the change of rights. Normally in hugh scale project.
the term "commissioned" is not a term coined up by me, but one that is used in the Copyright Act, therefore there is no "different meaning". whether the fees are high or low does not affect the legal position. perhaps u may be applying US law to Singapore.
Just to make thing clearer, let's take a simple example. A wedding photographer closes a deal to shoot couple for their wedding portraits. After the shoot is done, works handed over, and charges paid, who is now the copyright owner?
Answer: The photographer of course. Unless the couple decides to buy over the rights, which most everyday couple wouldn't do, due to the fact a higher fee is to be charged.
Under Singapore law, wrong again, the couple owns the rights. what should probably done in everyday life is that the photographer should tell the couple as follows:
If you want the rights, then I charge $800
If you pass the rights back to me, I charge you $300.
it does not affect the basic premise that in the absence of specific agreement, the rights belong to the commissioner.
Do note that an important caveat is that the commissioner only owns the rights with respect to the purpose the photograph was commissioned. ie, the wedding couple only has rights to the works as agreed....they cannot later use the works for say, advertising or whatever which has not been contemplated by the parties.
And in the magazines where photo are ALWAYS (local publications execpted) credited, EVEN whe they have paid for it. Sepcially with the fact that overseas publications normally buys photos from image agencies rather than use in-house photographers like local ones (whom are underpaid and overworked).
Like I said, you may be applying the laws of the wrong jurisdiction here. reading from photo.net and all may not be applicable in Singapore.
:thumbsup: 
