TL;DR which part is it you have a problem with?Here's the draft - doesn't look good for photographers, at least not as good as it could have been.![]()
http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/39028_gon646c.pdf
That isn't always the case even in other countries. A photographer may not be the creator as they didn't do much other than click a button. In a collaborative effort where there is a photographer, a director and a model any of these can be the creator or it could be collaborative effort. People should learn that no matter what the law says there should always be a contract and in commissioned works this contract usually defaults to the commissioner having copyright.How is this possible? I thought any photo you take belongs to you. The client gets copies, but you remain the creator. Surely?
I actually don't but if the person commissioning it wants to have copyright they should also pay an appropriate amount. I think this is largely an attitude that started with amateur photographers. They can't charge enough because they don't have the skills so their contracts state they retain copyright to make money off their photos. Professional photographers with the skills don't care about letting go of their work and you won't find any of the major publications where it states copyright to pictures belong to the photographer.So you feel that if a person commissions a painting that the painting should belong to the artist and not the client?
And if I ask a builder to build me a house you think the house should belong to the builder once completed? Should we all rent from builders?
Why is it that artist feel that their work is somehow special and should be treated differently from others.