Having read the article, please add your thoughts and comments here.
I think this commentary is more rounded and more robust than most. which appear on the WWW.
It's implied that the author is primarily referencing US Copyright Law and secondarily the
similarities those laws have to other country's Copyright Law: I think that is a good point to make.
I think the author's references to "Licensing" (aka "Publishing and/or Reproduction Rights") and the differentiation and separation of Copyright and Licensing is useful, yet could have been further developed.
I think that any commentary on Copyright and Photography should point out that there are rare circumstances where the Photographer does not have Copyright simply because they released the shutter: this is certainly so in quite a few countries who carry British Copyright Law as their heritage, moreover, I think there may be still some circumstances where the same is true in the USA, which (as I understood the law when I was working in Atlanta) involve Photographers as employees, in some specific situations.
My last point concerns 'licensing' as it relates to the
Photographer's "Right to Publish" - that is: it is
not always the case that having Copyright of an Image allows the Photographer the Right to Publish (or Reproduce) the Image.
Additionally, the waters around what one can or cannot "safely" Publish (or reproduce) have definitely been muddied since the introduction of GDPR.
WW
