Comments on: New Canadian Law Gives Photographers All Copyrights to Images, Commissioned or Not

By: Tam Nguyen Photography

Tam Nguyen Photography — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:12:00 +0000

That actually clears it up. So, ultimately, the photographer community isn’t gaining much; just what really should have been theirs in the first place.

By: RUSS

RUSS — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:10:00 +0000

CONGRATS TO ALL YOU CANADIAN PHOTOGRAPHERS! :)

By: wtiy

wtiy — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 04:35:00 +0000

These aren’t exactly the same thing. The Empire State or the Hollywood sign require licensing fees, which are independent of the issue of copyright of a particular photo. As in, the licensing fees are NOT going away with the implementation of this law, nor are they being challenged in any way. You’re still going to have to pay licensing fees, period. All that’s changing is that if I hire a photographer to take a photo of the skyline, (s)he’s going to own the copyright to the photo (but not necessarily the objects depicted IN the photo).

By: Spy Black

Spy Black — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:55:00 +0000

If this could happen in the U.S., it would be interesting in the case of shooting something like the New York skyline. As I understand it, buildings such as the Empire State building have a copyright on their image. Things would appear to get thorny.

By: christopher steven b

christopher steven b — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:46:00 +0000

It’s sort of a moot point for me as a wedding photographer given that I have possession of copyright in my contract. I am, however, interested in finding out what are the other implications of this change.

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:26:00 +0000

This is awesome . Now we need that to happen here.