Wow, this was 3 years ago, but 3 years ago, I wasn't even painting (well, except walls and trim in my house). Now, I'm painting my own artwork, I'd like to start a business, and your video was so helpful, thank you! Plus, thanks for the giggles, you're very fun and entertaining.
This was not at all what I thought it would be. I think artist's need to know about their responsibility for infringing on others copyrights. This is good info, but I am not that good, and am not worried about others infringing on my copyrights. Could you do one on infringing on copyrights when artists do art work from copyrighted works, such as copyrighted photos or original art work? I see this a lot. A woman I know took a class using someone else's painting to copy from. I asked if they got permission from the artist to use his artwork & she avoided the question. I think this is very prevalent today. People think if they change some percentage of the original work that they are safe. They are not. If the copy is recognizable as the original , they are infringing on a copyright. You can tell I've researched this a little, also. : ) Thank you for the video. I love Jerry's!!
Pretty sure it isn't illegal to look similar to something else. Otherwise there'd be around 3 superheroes. You can't trademark an aesthetic or genre and when two things are in the same genre and aesthetic they are bound to look like eachother. I don't think there is any legal cause for similarity. Someone can naturally create something original that looks like it came from something else, that is bound to happen constantly, I am pretty confident in saying they will not get sued. All this in mind, saying "you can't just change a certain amount of something" is demonstrably false. You can make something that is clearly derivative yet different enough to stand alone and be fine. I have seen so many games and artworks that are intentionally calling to another copyrighted media but have knowingly changed it enough to be distinguished and meant for a different audience. You say you've researched a bit but if what you're saying is true than swathes of things that exist in culture wouldn't exist. Half of indie video games would be pulled from steam if that were true.
The same thing applies to music. Say a certain piece of music is public domain like classical music for example; the original works are indeed public domain but if a composer for a music book makes his own arrangement then he/she themselves own the copyright of that arrangement of that piece of music. Video game music is pretty much the same thing as you described with your employee if someone is working on a piece of music for the game then it is owned by company who hired them.
Thank you to you and your crack team, for presenting this topic. 😎 It helps a lot in understanding the basics. One of the easiest to understand I have heard to date.
I cannot answer this with authority, but I would think so. If you aren't sure you can always reach out to RUclips/Google. Or you can post it and they might just flag it and take it down.
Excellent information! It was touched on briefly, but I think it is important to emphasize the importance of copyright for reference photos. Finding an image on Google or Pinterest does not mean it is public domain! Also, the laws you are discussing are for US - other countries have different rules. The other thing that confuses people is the difference between copyright, trademark, and patent. You can copyright a tangible work but not a name or title. You trademark company/product logos, names or slogans. And patents are for protecting a process or design. So Zentangle is a trademark. A new formulation for paint, a new, innovative technique for applying paint to a surface, or the aesthetic design of a manufactured item can be patented. I researched and wrote a pretty detailed article (split into 2 blog posts because there was so much to cover). I geared it toward artists/crafters - both for protecting their creations and use of others’ works. If you give me permission, I can include a link here.
Another interesting point that we hope the EU Article 13 will solve, and then it will be interesting to see how youtube and similar choose to interpret, usually to the far right of their safety in not being sued or having anyone cause problems. What it will probably come to is: If you didn't write it, invent it, record it, paint it, or obtain the publishing rights to it - then don't use it, not even a tiny part of it, not even the inspiration of it. Which in a kind of a purist fashion is the way it should be, and yet impractical if not impossible in real life. We are all influenced by things we've seen and heard, and sometimes don't even remember or realize it. And no one is going to re-invent wheels every time they start to work.
An added difference between copyright and trademark is that copyright owners can selectively protect it and still retain rights (i.e. they can sue everyone who violates or none or anything in-between) while trademark holders are legally compelled to vigorously defend their trademark(s) lest they lose future standing.
This is why I didnt want to start RUclips, I’m scared that people are going to steal my art, and them people are going to think I stole it ! I have a problem wit my friend every time I draw something they always ask if they can do it digitally for me ( even tho I have a drawing tablet) and once I showed them a pic of my art and a week later there profile on RUclips is my art ! And they haven’t credited me, I don’t know what to do, any ideas on how to talk to them, love your video btw !
TJ Duprey wrote: “The more the word gets out, the more empowered artists are.” The creative community is *EMPOWERED* when they timely register their copyrights (artwork) with the US Copyright Office. Watch the first 20-seconds of this Washington, DC copyright attorney (litigator) to understand why: ruclips.net/video/cBOKkrleY3Y/видео.html
This is interesting, and ran into these problems especially logo creation, when I design a logo and the other person saw it and created a new design based on the draft I created.
Such a fantastic and important video Mike. I am going to throw a spanner in the works here but I hope you know the answer. Fan Art is huge online and at Comic Con events down the likes of artists ally, millions of speed drawing videos of Marvel, DC, Star Wars etc characters are created and displayed at such events as well as having copies sold online via Etsy or EBay. What is the guidelines behind this? It would seem that Artists Ally at ComicCon is a lawyers heaven, strolling down the ally dropping lawsuits like carpet bombing raid. Excellent video as always
You know something, this is a topic that I have struggled to grasp myself. I would think you were right, that a comic convention would be a lawyer's heaven. Please also keep in mind that there might be different/separate laws in the UK than in the US.
From what I've researched the majority of "fan art" does violate copyright but it's up to the copyright holder to pursue legal action if they choose. The Firefly Jane hat situation is a great example of a copyright holder being lax for many years and then suddenly choosing to enforce their legal protection much later at their discretion *cough* once the product had proven marketable through the labour of fans *cough*.
The only reason I can think of for copyright infringement is if someone makes an illegal copy of something and try to sell it without the owner getting anything in return.
what if a photographer gave useage permission to multiple artists and they all painted the same scene? Is this a copy right infringement and who would have distribution rights?
If I make my painting, copyright right it, then sell the painting, do the new owners own the copyright? Can I see a piece without selling the copyrights?
I have a question after watching like 3 hours of copyright info, I haven't heard this gray area addressed. So I'll use what I'm doing right now for example, I'm working on a "halo" artwork, halo is a scifi epic with supersoldiers in armor, right. Now, It looks like halo, because its about those things, but all the designs, the armors themselves, are entirely original designs. They have golden visors and black undersuits, they look like halo spartans, but they are original designs. What I'm wondering is if that gives me the ability to legally sell it. Obviously I wouldn't title it halo or associate it in any way with it, but it is, in a sense, based on the visual identity of halo without directly taking any of its designs or characters. Anyone could see it and think its halo but its technically original, minus the subject matter, but I don't think that is grounds enough for copyright. Does this sound legal? for another simpler parallel, imagine a painting of soldiers clad in white armor, another clad in black with a broadsword caked in red flames. It looks like starwars, but all the designs are original, it doesn't have a lightsaber, it doesn't have the character of darth vader but it has a similar character, but it doesn't brand or associate with starwars in any way. Does that make it legal, or is that somehow legally a rip off?
Great video. But, being artists, you need to do a video addressing purely PARODIES. Parodies run along a very thin copryight/fair use line. Because a parody is original art. But it is, generally, a mix of copyrighted characters/logos/etc. Parodies fall under Fair Use laws, but creators of said characters simply don't care. That character is their "baby" and the believe no one should ever make money off of their "babies". Which simply is not true. Examples: I have created a semi-popular parody that combines the art STYLE of Calvin And Hobbes with that likenesses of Halo's Master Chief and Cortana characters. 343industries/Microsoft have, without my asking, given their approval of my making money of selling t-shirts, posters, and stickers of the art. By law, I don't need their permission to do so. As it is MY ORIGINAL ART, it is clearly a parody, and it in no form hurts their brand. However; the Calvin And Hobbes owner is super protective of his characters. And that is fine. But his orginization will go after ANYTHING and ANYONE that attempts to use his characters. Again, that is fine. What is not fine is that he/they do(es) the same with his art style. Which he can not own. And so I'm always finding myself fighting to keep this particular art, of mine, in my TeePublic and RedBubble stores. Which is hilarious because they still have not stopped the decal creator from using Calvin. Which Calvin's creator has stated he did not authorize. Side Note. RedBubble has bought TeePublic. Example 2: I've created a logo that resembles a bat but made from the shape of a spider. It's not Batman related, nor is it Spider-Man related. But I can see how one may think differently. A "artist" decided to combine multiple images together, paint over them, and call them original art. Um..no. That is not art. Anywho, this person decided to steal from myself and another artist, to photo manipulate, to create this piece. The other artist created a mashup parody of Spider-Man and Batman. This thief took that art, and simply added real world textures over it, slap my logo onto the chest, and tried to pass it off as his own original art. Clearly, that will not fly with us. I contacted him and told him it was okay so long he does not attempt to make a profit off of it. But he needs to credit myself and the other artist, to keep it in his gallery. I also tagged the other artist. He apologized and removed the work. I reminded him that he could but it back up, just credit us and don't sell prints. He left it down. then used a fake account to defend himself and attack us, ON OUR POSTS! Let's just say it did not end well for him.
SE Spider- I’m not to sure you were in the right on example #2. It sounds like the person changed it significantly from what it was originally. And since you don’t own the exclusive rights or spiders or bats or spider bat mashups I’m pretty sure you can’t ban someone from creating art from that.
i have a question i am making watercolor travel palettes, and am decorating them with collage paper i bought , can i sell these if i mention the paper brand etc without copyright infringement ?
i think it could depend on what images are on the paper, but again, I am no expert. If you are very concerned talk about it amongst your artist friends or contact a lawyer that can tell you with authority. (And make sure you have examples to show)
This video just reminded me of a story I heard about where a gallery and an artist were fighting over a painting he denied having painted. ruclips.net/video/UGHXk-WRStQ/видео.html It's crazy.
When you pay someone to take photos you DO own the copyright because he is working for hire = you. If no one bought singles, the iTunes mp3 market would have vanished years ago. What few people buy today is actually CDs. "Poor man's copyright" (mailing to yourself) proves in court you made x thing on x date, and is still valid. Your father did not put Sears right out of business. Technique (and trade secrets) would be under "patents", which are expensive, intensive, and are not gained "really quick". If you value your computer, or whatever tools you used to create with, don't even think about muffing with Disney, which would be wrong to do on many levels anyway. The web needs poorly researched "facts" - good show.
NexySaloon this isn’t entirely true. If you hire a photographer, you do not automatically own the copyright. If the photographer is an employee, then the photos are owned by the corporation. If the photographer is independent, then there must be an explicit contract spelling out “work made for hire” and all terms of ownership and when that transfer of ownership occurs must be clearly defined. Anyone who has hired a professional wedding photographer or had school photos taken will know that they are very clear that if you want copies, you must order through them or pay extra to buy the rights to make your own prints (essentially paying for them to assign you copyright ownership).
Yes, it does need to be spelled out in writing, hiring someone is not exactly the same as having an employee. I simplified to keep it short, because anyone who truly needs to know, should visit a law library rather than take anything on youtube as fact. At which point they will find the full in depth answers.
SteampunkBelladonna- The first part of your comment is false. Photographers file 1099’s because they are independent contractors not employees. They own the rights to the photos. Unless there’s an explicit contract where they transfer the rights to you they own them. Paying someone to take photos of you does not make them your employee nor you their employer.
@@valu1827 Depends on the terms of the contract doesn't it??? NASA pays freelance, and has staff photographers - and NASA owns the rights, for example. If I pay someone to operate a cam in my productions, no they do NOT own a piece of my finished film, I'm just hiring a freelance pair of hands hopefully with a brain attached. Coming from the 5th generation of pro photographers, musicians, and film-makers, and my family has done work for the neighbor next door getting married to my grandfather came up in the world with Disney and the other now greats of the day, including Heffner. I personally am mostly into music, film, animation, but I've got their 100 years behind me, I'm not just quoting from Google searches, or community college "professor". Someone way back traveled for a few months with Mathew Brady, we had glass plates of Native Americans, and I could say much more, but I'm quite bored with this subject now, as well as a generation of know-alls who get their knowledge from Assassin's Creed games, and have never had nor needed a full time copyright attorney, which - I once had. Retired now, simpler life, ciao.
@@valu1827 Your needle is stuck in one groove. And you obviously do not listen nor think beyond what your own ideas. My attorney would shred you in 8 seconds or less, probably wouldn't even get into the court room.
Enjoy Mike Not Jerry's humor? Be sure to check out his RUclips Channel! ruclips.net/user/itsmikenotjerry
Wow, this was 3 years ago, but 3 years ago, I wasn't even painting (well, except walls and trim in my house). Now, I'm painting my own artwork, I'd like to start a business, and your video was so helpful, thank you! Plus, thanks for the giggles, you're very fun and entertaining.
This why we have lawyers. Also, how about a video on Creative Commons?
This was not at all what I thought it would be. I think artist's need to know about their responsibility for infringing on others copyrights. This is good info, but I am not that good, and am not worried about others infringing on my copyrights. Could you do one on infringing on copyrights when artists do art work from copyrighted works, such as copyrighted photos or original art work? I see this a lot. A woman I know took a class using someone else's painting to copy from. I asked if they got permission from the artist to use his artwork & she avoided the question. I think this is very prevalent today. People think if they change some percentage of the original work that they are safe. They are not. If the copy is recognizable as the original , they are infringing on a copyright. You can tell I've researched this a little, also. : ) Thank you for the video. I love Jerry's!!
Pretty sure it isn't illegal to look similar to something else. Otherwise there'd be around 3 superheroes. You can't trademark an aesthetic or genre and when two things are in the same genre and aesthetic they are bound to look like eachother. I don't think there is any legal cause for similarity. Someone can naturally create something original that looks like it came from something else, that is bound to happen constantly, I am pretty confident in saying they will not get sued. All this in mind, saying "you can't just change a certain amount of something" is demonstrably false. You can make something that is clearly derivative yet different enough to stand alone and be fine. I have seen so many games and artworks that are intentionally calling to another copyrighted media but have knowingly changed it enough to be distinguished and meant for a different audience. You say you've researched a bit but if what you're saying is true than swathes of things that exist in culture wouldn't exist. Half of indie video games would be pulled from steam if that were true.
The same thing applies to music. Say a certain piece of music is public domain like classical music for example; the original works are indeed public domain but if a composer for a music book makes his own arrangement then he/she themselves own the copyright of that arrangement of that piece of music. Video game music is pretty much the same thing as you described with your employee if someone is working on a piece of music for the game then it is owned by company who hired them.
Thank you to you and your crack team, for presenting this topic. 😎 It helps a lot in understanding the basics. One of the easiest to understand I have heard to date.
Question: I made a video of my bird singing along with Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah. Can I post it to RUclips as a parrotty?
I cannot answer this with authority, but I would think so. If you aren't sure you can always reach out to RUclips/Google. Or you can post it and they might just flag it and take it down.
@@JerrysArtarama it was supposed to be a pun, parrot-ty
No, that is a derivative work and as such the original music is protected from your infringement. RUclips will probably take it down.
Excellent information! It was touched on briefly, but I think it is important to emphasize the importance of copyright for reference photos. Finding an image on Google or Pinterest does not mean it is public domain! Also, the laws you are discussing are for US - other countries have different rules. The other thing that confuses people is the difference between copyright, trademark, and patent. You can copyright a tangible work but not a name or title. You trademark company/product logos, names or slogans. And patents are for protecting a process or design. So Zentangle is a trademark. A new formulation for paint, a new, innovative technique for applying paint to a surface, or the aesthetic design of a manufactured item can be patented.
I researched and wrote a pretty detailed article (split into 2 blog posts because there was so much to cover). I geared it toward artists/crafters - both for protecting their creations and use of others’ works. If you give me permission, I can include a link here.
Another interesting point that we hope the EU Article 13 will solve, and then it will be interesting to see how youtube and similar choose to interpret, usually to the far right of their safety in not being sued or having anyone cause problems.
What it will probably come to is: If you didn't write it, invent it, record it, paint it, or obtain the publishing rights to it - then don't use it, not even a tiny part of it, not even the inspiration of it.
Which in a kind of a purist fashion is the way it should be, and yet impractical if not impossible in real life. We are all influenced by things we've seen and heard, and sometimes don't even remember or realize it. And no one is going to re-invent wheels every time they start to work.
An added difference between copyright and trademark is that copyright owners can selectively protect it and still retain rights (i.e. they can sue everyone who violates or none or anything in-between) while trademark holders are legally compelled to vigorously defend their trademark(s) lest they lose future standing.
This is why I didnt want to start RUclips, I’m scared that people are going to steal my art, and them people are going to think I stole it ! I have a problem wit my friend every time I draw something they always ask if they can do it digitally for me ( even tho I have a drawing tablet) and once I showed them a pic of my art and a week later there profile on RUclips is my art ! And they haven’t credited me, I don’t know what to do, any ideas on how to talk to them, love your video btw !
Good useful information! Thanks for sharing!
Nice session on copyright. The more the word gets out, the more empowered artists are.
TJ Duprey wrote: “The more the word gets out, the more empowered artists are.” The creative community is *EMPOWERED* when they timely register their copyrights (artwork) with the US Copyright Office. Watch the first 20-seconds of this Washington, DC copyright attorney (litigator) to understand why: ruclips.net/video/cBOKkrleY3Y/видео.html
This is so important! Thank you!
Good info! Thanks for the education. Love watching your MikeNotJerry videos.
Technique, colors, costume, names, poses can't be copyrighted. Unique in a specific style Names costume can be trademarked.
This is interesting, and ran into these problems especially logo creation, when I design a logo and the other person saw it and created a new design based on the draft I created.
Such a fantastic and important video Mike. I am going to throw a spanner in the works here but I hope you know the answer. Fan Art is huge online and at Comic Con events down the likes of artists ally, millions of speed drawing videos of Marvel, DC, Star Wars etc characters are created and displayed at such events as well as having copies sold online via Etsy or EBay. What is the guidelines behind this? It would seem that Artists Ally at ComicCon is a lawyers heaven, strolling down the ally dropping lawsuits like carpet bombing raid. Excellent video as always
You know something, this is a topic that I have struggled to grasp myself. I would think you were right, that a comic convention would be a lawyer's heaven. Please also keep in mind that there might be different/separate laws in the UK than in the US.
From what I've researched the majority of "fan art" does violate copyright but it's up to the copyright holder to pursue legal action if they choose. The Firefly Jane hat situation is a great example of a copyright holder being lax for many years and then suddenly choosing to enforce their legal protection much later at their discretion *cough* once the product had proven marketable through the labour of fans *cough*.
Thank you Jerry very helpful. 👍 5/19/23
The only reason I can think of for copyright infringement is if someone makes an illegal copy of something and try to sell it without the owner getting anything in return.
Thanks! Lots of info I didn't know. I do know an intellectual property lawyer.
Love watching you. You are hilarious
Thanks! Great vid!
what if a photographer gave useage permission to multiple artists and they all painted the same scene? Is this a copy right infringement and who would have distribution rights?
Yer so funny :-) Good info delivered with charm. TY
what about legal forgers.....seen a show on an artist who copy famous art and sells them as copies.
Good & useful !
Thanks 👍
Thanks for tuning in!
Good Show, thank you for doing the research. Your wife is a sensible woman: beard suits you.
when using some person's art style and techniques, do we still need to put reference or tag that person?
zentangle is trademark
If I make my painting, copyright right it, then sell the painting, do the new owners own the copyright?
Can I see a piece without selling the copyrights?
The beard is nice. 🧔
I have a question after watching like 3 hours of copyright info, I haven't heard this gray area addressed. So I'll use what I'm doing right now for example, I'm working on a "halo" artwork, halo is a scifi epic with supersoldiers in armor, right. Now, It looks like halo, because its about those things, but all the designs, the armors themselves, are entirely original designs. They have golden visors and black undersuits, they look like halo spartans, but they are original designs. What I'm wondering is if that gives me the ability to legally sell it. Obviously I wouldn't title it halo or associate it in any way with it, but it is, in a sense, based on the visual identity of halo without directly taking any of its designs or characters. Anyone could see it and think its halo but its technically original, minus the subject matter, but I don't think that is grounds enough for copyright. Does this sound legal?
for another simpler parallel, imagine a painting of soldiers clad in white armor, another clad in black with a broadsword caked in red flames. It looks like starwars, but all the designs are original, it doesn't have a lightsaber, it doesn't have the character of darth vader but it has a similar character, but it doesn't brand or associate with starwars in any way. Does that make it legal, or is that somehow legally a rip off?
🎨💕
wow i can't believe u sang that line .... dating ourselves we are lmao
Great video.
But, being artists, you need to do a video addressing purely PARODIES.
Parodies run along a very thin copryight/fair use line. Because a parody is original art. But it is, generally, a mix of copyrighted characters/logos/etc. Parodies fall under Fair Use laws, but creators of said characters simply don't care. That character is their "baby" and the believe no one should ever make money off of their "babies". Which simply is not true.
Examples:
I have created a semi-popular parody that combines the art STYLE of Calvin And Hobbes with that likenesses of Halo's Master Chief and Cortana characters. 343industries/Microsoft have, without my asking, given their approval of my making money of selling t-shirts, posters, and stickers of the art.
By law, I don't need their permission to do so. As it is MY ORIGINAL ART, it is clearly a parody, and it in no form hurts their brand.
However; the Calvin And Hobbes owner is super protective of his characters. And that is fine. But his orginization will go after ANYTHING and ANYONE that attempts to use his characters. Again, that is fine. What is not fine is that he/they do(es) the same with his art style. Which he can not own. And so I'm always finding myself fighting to keep this particular art, of mine, in my TeePublic and RedBubble stores. Which is hilarious because they still have not stopped the decal creator from using Calvin. Which Calvin's creator has stated he did not authorize. Side Note. RedBubble has bought TeePublic.
Example 2:
I've created a logo that resembles a bat but made from the shape of a spider. It's not Batman related, nor is it Spider-Man related. But I can see how one may think differently. A "artist" decided to combine multiple images together, paint over them, and call them original art. Um..no. That is not art. Anywho, this person decided to steal from myself and another artist, to photo manipulate, to create this piece. The other artist created a mashup parody of Spider-Man and Batman. This thief took that art, and simply added real world textures over it, slap my logo onto the chest, and tried to pass it off as his own original art.
Clearly, that will not fly with us. I contacted him and told him it was okay so long he does not attempt to make a profit off of it. But he needs to credit myself and the other artist, to keep it in his gallery. I also tagged the other artist. He apologized and removed the work. I reminded him that he could but it back up, just credit us and don't sell prints. He left it down. then used a fake account to defend himself and attack us, ON OUR POSTS! Let's just say it did not end well for him.
SE Spider- I’m not to sure you were in the right on example #2. It sounds like the person changed it significantly from what it was originally. And since you don’t own the exclusive rights or spiders or bats or spider bat mashups I’m pretty sure you can’t ban someone from creating art from that.
bout time, where have you been.
why can't all videos be 4k or 2k, or even 1080?
i have a question i am making watercolor travel palettes, and am decorating them with collage paper i bought , can i sell these if i mention the paper brand etc without copyright infringement ?
i think it could depend on what images are on the paper, but again, I am no expert. If you are very concerned talk about it amongst your artist friends or contact a lawyer that can tell you with authority. (And make sure you have examples to show)
This video just reminded me of a story I heard about where a gallery and an artist were fighting over a painting he denied having painted. ruclips.net/video/UGHXk-WRStQ/видео.html
It's crazy.
Thanks a lot...but can you make short videos please
When you pay someone to take photos you DO own the copyright because he is working for hire = you.
If no one bought singles, the iTunes mp3 market would have vanished years ago. What few people buy today is actually CDs.
"Poor man's copyright" (mailing to yourself) proves in court you made x thing on x date, and is still valid.
Your father did not put Sears right out of business.
Technique (and trade secrets) would be under "patents", which are expensive, intensive, and are not gained "really quick".
If you value your computer, or whatever tools you used to create with, don't even think about muffing with Disney, which would be wrong to do on many levels anyway.
The web needs poorly researched "facts" - good show.
NexySaloon this isn’t entirely true. If you hire a photographer, you do not automatically own the copyright. If the photographer is an employee, then the photos are owned by the corporation. If the photographer is independent, then there must be an explicit contract spelling out “work made for hire” and all terms of ownership and when that transfer of ownership occurs must be clearly defined. Anyone who has hired a professional wedding photographer or had school photos taken will know that they are very clear that if you want copies, you must order through them or pay extra to buy the rights to make your own prints (essentially paying for them to assign you copyright ownership).
Yes, it does need to be spelled out in writing, hiring someone is not exactly the same as having an employee. I simplified to keep it short, because anyone who truly needs to know, should visit a law library rather than take anything on youtube as fact. At which point they will find the full in depth answers.
SteampunkBelladonna- The first part of your comment is false. Photographers file 1099’s because they are independent contractors not employees. They own the rights to the photos. Unless there’s an explicit contract where they transfer the rights to you they own them. Paying someone to take photos of you does not make them your employee nor you their employer.
@@valu1827 Depends on the terms of the contract doesn't it??? NASA pays freelance, and has staff photographers - and NASA owns the rights, for example. If I pay someone to operate a cam in my productions, no they do NOT own a piece of my finished film, I'm just hiring a freelance pair of hands hopefully with a brain attached. Coming from the 5th generation of pro photographers, musicians, and film-makers, and my family has done work for the neighbor next door getting married to my grandfather came up in the world with Disney and the other now greats of the day, including Heffner. I personally am mostly into music, film, animation, but I've got their 100 years behind me, I'm not just quoting from Google searches, or community college "professor". Someone way back traveled for a few months with Mathew Brady, we had glass plates of Native Americans, and I could say much more, but I'm quite bored with this subject now, as well as a generation of know-alls who get their knowledge from Assassin's Creed games, and have never had nor needed a full time copyright attorney, which - I once had. Retired now, simpler life, ciao.
@@valu1827 Your needle is stuck in one groove. And you obviously do not listen nor think beyond what your own ideas. My attorney would shred you in 8 seconds or less, probably wouldn't even get into the court room.
More like copy*wrong*
I think your fish died. ;(