On Dec 22, 10:00*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 12/22/2010 6:43 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:





On Dec 22, 5:23 pm, Darryl *wrote:

What are you reading? There is no way anything in that agreement
removes other existing rights you have as copyright owner. You are
still the copyright owner, you can do whatever you want with the same
image etc. You are assigning rights to use not assigning the original
copyright.

That is not to say there are no concerns with these types of
agreements and surprising uses may not have imagined when you assigned
over permission to use -- although the SSA agreement at least clearly
restricts this to soaring related things.

Darryl
(And if it shows, yes I've done too many source code licensing
agreements...)

" By submitting such material to the
SSA for consideration and/or publication the submitter represents
that
they hold the right to grant a release of copyright in respect of
such
material."

release of copyright means I give up my rights to the material, not
that I grant specific use. *I am sure you and the lawyers could argue
about it all day, but in my opinion, sending pictures to SSA renders
them worthless to me.

The quoted language does not say that you are releasing your copyright,
but only that you have the right to do so. *The SSA wants to make sure
that you are not giving them a photo that belongs to someone other than you.

I agree with Darryl.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like Darryl, I spend WAAY too much time looking at copyright and IP
clauses in licensing agreements. The key word is "exclusive".
Unless the SSA requires you to grant them exclusive use of the
material (which they don't), you would still have the right to, for
example, sell a photo to another publication and be paid for the
same.

And, last time I looked, I could count on less than one hand the
number of people who have done anything other than break even trying
to commercialize text or photo content related to soaring.

So, no, I see absolutely no problem with the SSA requirement.

P3