LEGALITY

[rijit]

I got asked to take some replacement pics of some wall paintings for a organization, no money was exchanged

or contract drawn up. They decided, nothing to do with my pics , but they didnt want/ need them as the originals turned up. Am i free to use these pics as i want?:shrug: cheers

 

[foodpoison]

You own copyright to the pictures, however I don't believe you can sell them...

 

[david1701]

depends on the contract - its probably still valid even if they don't use the pics (unless thats a term)

 

[Marc]

But the OP stated that no contract was drawn up although there may be copyright issues with the artworks themselves.

 

[david1701]

right, I'm an egit

I misread the OP I read it as there was a contract

 

[towershot]

right, I'm an egit

I misread the OP I read it as there was a contract

It's nice to know there are a few of us here...............

 

[rijit]

Thanks guys. So whats the conclusion?

 

[HoppyUK]

From what you've said, and it wasn't your permanent employer who asked you to take the pics, then you have copyright in them. However, you do not own copyright in the image of the original wall paintings.

If you were 'copying' them and your images could in any way be seen as essentially the same as the originals, then you quite possibly are not able to reproduce them from a strictly legal viewpoint. Or claim them as your intellectual property. Copying is an instant breach of copyright; photocopying is very often technically illegal.

It's hard to say without seeing them, but copyright exists to protect the intellectual property of the original artist/s. Basically, if it can be said that you are exploiting the original artist in some way, and unfairly, then the law would rule against you