Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray West said:Nice to see you're getting around to my way of thinking -
I'm not sure about the necessity of the second line, whether the original copyright owner has automatic ownership of derivitives, etc. May well vary in differnt countries.
The matter came up in screenwriting groups where everyone reads and gives feed back, just like here. We has an instance of one person claiming that he now had part authorship! To exclude that, and allow the group to continue, we specifically agreed to eschew any such potential rights and donate any potential ownership back to the original author.
So, IMHOI, if someone suggests the image should be in B&W and provides the perfect unique version that wins a competition and gets huge sales, no claims could be made. It also clearly removes any excuses for reposting ewlsewhere any derived image by saying "It was equally my creation, since I made it succesful" .
This took a bunch of text to explain, but the implications are clear and legally or at least morally should apply everywhere.
I don't remember on RG discussions in depth about particular wedding, street, portrait, architecture or other photography. This is a small community and we must immediately remove concerns and provide clarity. Nicolas' feelings, and the concerns about EXIF and so forth are valid too.
The current draft is clear and concise.
"Unless otherwise specified, images posted for critique can be modified and reposted here as part of that critique.
Any such changes are hereby donated to the image's copyright in consideration for participation in this forum."
Please post any further ideas. I intend to add this to the top of the forums by the end of this month.
Asher