[j-me]

August 26, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I have no idea what legally constitutes employment – I’m no lawyer. More importantly, I couldn’t see any legal definition at the start of the act and found several definitions at the start of other acts (though they were quite similar).

As for the example I’d say no. If we modified the example and said you were a pub owner and you asked one of your staff to take photographs of the pub as one of their duties then I’d say yes. Again, I’m no lawyer so this could easily be completely wrong.

[j-me]

August 26, 2008 at 11:59 am

Well it was already mentioned but I think that what they were doing were giving you notification that you weren’t going to be the copyright owner of the photos you took. As you are being employed as a photographer under section 23 of the copyright and related rights act 2000 I’d imagine they’re automatically the copyright holder unless you come to an alternate agreement. You’d still have the paternal(?) rights but that’s it.

I’m guessing the whole reason they chuck that in there is to try and make people aware of it so they don’t have people trying to hassle them over photo uses in promo vids etc.

I’m no lawyer but that’s the way I see it.

[j-me]

August 23, 2008 at 9:11 pm

It’s amazing the difference that makes – thanks for the help.

[j-me]

August 23, 2008 at 8:16 pm

LoGill wrote:

Ok – here goes :)

The difficulty for me is interest – as its a wood – there is little chance to isolate something of interest, I see a pathway which you could consider making a feature or interest in the shot

the attention must be grabbed by something – light for instance – this looks like it was taken too late to catch the best light – which for good landscape is crucial .. very early morning (which is the main reason i suck at landscape :) ) or evening light

Last point here.. change your perspective – this images appear to be taken at eye level, which is how we all see, so its not peaking interest of the viewer.. but if you can get low, or change perspective somehow – you can draw people in

Hope this helps you!

L

Thanks a lot – after what Alan said I was wondering whether this would’ve been a better shot had I tried to make the path a feature (I couldn’t really see anything else) so I’m glad at least I’m starting to focus on these things (hopefully it’ll last longer than 24hrs).

Also, thanks for another two excellent tips – I think I may have to settle for evening light if I want to take more landscape photos :).

[j-me]

August 23, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Thanks guys and thanks for the comment Brian.

[j-me]

August 23, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Thanks for the tip Alan (and Hauke by proxy), that’s so obvious but now that I think about it I think that it could be my biggest problem – I haven’t really been looking at what’s in the landscape but just looking at it as one whole thing (if that makes sense).

I did post some photos in my introduction thread and also one in a landscape thread but I haven’t received any comments on them – should I have just posted them here (I posted the ones in the landscape thread because I thought I’d receive more comments than here). I also wanted more general advice though because I really had no clue as to what I was shooting (quite literally as it turns out).

Here’s a photo I took in Marlay Park please let me know what worked (if anything) and what didn’t. Also, I’ve been posting the images as their medium sizes so they don’t take up too long to load and just including a link to the full-size image – should I just post the full-size to begin with?