On Dec 24, 11:46*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
On Dec 23, 11:44*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Dec 23, 11:23*am, Andy wrote:

On Dec 23, 10:24*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:

"related to the sport of soaring" says just that. What does that
*really* mean -- like anything else it's what a court would decide.

You seem to have completely missed the point I was making. *The phrase
"related to the sport of soaring" does not describe the purpose for
which the work may be used. * The phrase "related to the sport of
soaring" describes the type of third part that SSA feels they can pass
the material on to.

Please read it again -

""and to authorize third parties who are engaged in the dissemination
of
information relating to the sport of soaring to reproduce and sell or
distribute freely, such material."

Andy

I do not expect a court would take that to mean that organization then
has rights to sell or allow other use of the copyright material
outside their own normal and reasonable role of dissemination of
information relating to the sport of soaring. But you are granting
rights to that organization to allow them to reproduce and sell or
distribute freely or for charge your material within their role of
dissemination of information relating to the sport of soaring. I do
not read this as allowing a blanket grant to somebody downstream to
sell or distribute freely for any and every possible purpose--
otherwise the agreement would not have included the initial
stipulation. But then the court has the final say.

I think your best options are medication and/or not submitting your
photos to the SSA. :-)

Darryl

Hey Darryl,

Do you really need to resort to personal attacks against me and Andy
when we don't share your opinion? *I think that sort of thing is
beneath you, and I don't appreciate it. *Lets keep the conversation
civil. *As far as reading legal agreements and knowledge of the
subject, my wife is a lawyer and a stock photographer, my dad is a
freelance photographer and journalist, and was the president of ASMP
for several years. *He focused a lot of effort during that time on
protecting copyrights for photographers.

Matt

Matt

You do understand what a smiley means? And that would be the same Andy
joking about the same medication needs recently.

I am well aware of your father's contribution to photo journalism but
basic reading of stuff here was fairly interesting. You may want to
talk the legal stuff through with your wife again. I'm also happy to
recommend some great IP attorneys if you want to pay for an opinion.

Again if you think you have stuff that is commercially or culturally
valuable then just don't submit it to the SSA and by all means go sell
rights to it to others. I expect the average soaring pilot in the USA
who submits photos to the SSA would be happy for them to be used to
promote soaring. And I just do not see it is a good use of SSA
resources to be trying to manage complex copyright issues. It is much
easier for them to generally work in the free and clear. Lets see I
spent a few years on the editorial board of a professional/trade
magazine, I've worked at Adobe on InDesign (a software platform used
to publish many magazines) and ran a publishing industry team in
Europe for Adobe and worked on development of content/asset management
technology and dealt with enough software licensing deals with
copyright issues that I probably have some reasonable basis to say
this is a mess that I'd hate to see the SSA waste resources on trying
to appease people worried about the pretty standard type copyright
submission wording that stirred up this thread.

Thanks

Darryl