Whose picture is it really...a copyright issue...

The photo of the plane must be so pathetic, it can't be yours, really. After seeing the girls on the rooftop, it can't be yours. You shouldn't even pretend it's yours or you'll get laughed at here!! by all means possible, don't post it here once the trial is over )
My curiosity wants to see that "failed" photo, however.
Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com
Sports & general event photography

Richard Rollman said:

Thomas Gardner said:

DavidP said:

He who takes the picture owns the copyright. Unless he's assigned
it by virtue of some other agreement.

Click to expand...

Unless he was working as an agent or employee. In this case he was
working as an unpaid agent, doing a favor of tripping the shutter.

Sorry, because he was an admitted agent, he won't be able to
perfect his claim in cournt unless he can show that the act of
tripping the shutter was done for his benefit.

We're talking greed here.

If you're paid by Dali, as he has people do, to create art in his
name, it's his work, not their's. Same thing.

Click to expand...

I know a man working for Ford Motor Co. While he was ON THEIR
PAYROLL he invented the intermittent windshield wiper (wind screen
for your brits) he could not collect anything for his invention
because he was "employed" while inventing. It belonged to Ford
because they payed him for doing it.

Click to expand...

wow, how did you manage did get ALL the facts wrong on this?

he was not an employee, he did collect A LOT in settlements, he did win in one court case and was dismissed in another. he was suing or negotiating will all car makers who used his invention not just ford

Paul Pope said:

Proven time and time again in US courts ...
The photographer who pressed the shutter owns the copyright unless
assigned to another party by that person.
You can try to say whatever you like ...however it is a FACT that
in photography copyright is owned by whoever pressed the shutter.

Click to expand...

i was going to wait until finishing the whole thread before responding to any of this. but i have to interrupt myself before going any further.

i can't believe that a studio owner, a working pro, is not more aware then this! when and where has this been proven time and again in US courts? the fact is that every day people press the shutter who don't own the copyright! there are famous fashion photographers (close to your field, i'm surprised you don't know this!) who routinely have assistants trip the shutter, but it's sitll their work, they're the one's hired and contracted, it's their equipment, they create the set up, it's all done in his name. what about weddings shot every day? the hired shooter will often have assistants or associate shooters not taking "the" shot, but actually using different cameras taking secondary or candid shots essentially under their own direction and creative decision making on the particular shots but still under the overall umbrella of his shoot, his job, and the main shooter still owns all the copyrights unless he's agreed otherwise. these are either implicit by circumstance or explicitly agreed to work for hire situations

so no, it's not that simple and it's not a fact! now i'm not saying the example in this thread is cut and dried falling into the work for hire situation, but your and others assertion that it's cut and dried the other way purely by virtue of who pressed the shutter is simply false

DavidP said:

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00054/006920/title/subject/topic/intellectual%20property%20law_copyright/filename/intellectualpropertylaw_1_233

Read the entire article, but here's the important parts:

"under the federal Copyright Act the photographer owns the
copyrights in the photographs and thus controls how they may be
used. Copyright law is slanted in favor of the creator of the work
and vests him or her with the copyright. Copyright ownership stays
with the creator of the work unless the creator assigns the
copyright in writing to someone else"

"There are only two exceptions to the rule that the creator of a
work owns the copyright in it. First, if an employee (as opposed to
an independent contractor) creates a work within the scope of his
or her employment, then the employer, not the employee, owns the
copyright in the work. This is known as a work for hire"

"The second exception to the rule that the creator owns the
copyright applies when an independent contractor agrees, in
writing, before the work is created, that the work will be a work
for hire owned by the hiring party"

Any questions?

Click to expand...

case law evolves over time, as precident is set, as it's written and rewritten and how it's interpreted. i don't think it's cut and dred here and i certainly don't think this is the place to look for the answers! there are lawyers, and there are specialists in intellectual property, and specialists within that specialty who deal with copyright as it specifically applies to photography and photographers. it's someone like that who needs to be consulted, and even then of course the final verdict would be up to a judge, not david p's interpretation of another lawyers interpretation of the law!

appropriate lawyers can be found on the asmp, apa and ep websites

now, for more laymans opinion, the court would have to find whom it considers "the photographer" and whom "the creator" in this case. if you read the copyright law on work for hire there are factors such as is the work being done as part of the shooters job? and who owns the equipment? in this case there is no employer employee relationship and no independant contractor relationship either, yet some of the principals and circumstances involved in making those determinations are involved here.

i have a few more thoughts on this but i'm tired... maybe later

Suppose that instead of a camera that you were 'shooting' with it was a gun. You ask your 'friend' to hold the gun while you do something. Your friend stumbles and accidentally discharges the weapon, killing someone in the process.

Who 'shot' the person?

If this person really is your friend, keep it that way. If there is any money involved, split it 50/50. Don't forget that if he hadn't tripped over the tripod in the first place, there wouldn't be any photo to fight over. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Keep your friendship alive.

Guillaume in Paris said:

The photo of the plane must be so pathetic, it can't be yours,
really. After seeing the girls on the rooftop, it can't be yours.
You shouldn't even pretend it's yours or you'll get laughed at
here!! by all means possible, don't post it here once the trial is
over )
My curiosity wants to see that "failed" photo, however.
Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com
Sports & general event photography

Click to expand...

If I get a contract for shooting a bunch of widgets, a couple of hundreds. I set up the shoot and hire my neighbors (he have no job and is always seeking something to do in the neighborhood to make some money) to change the widgets, one at a time and trigger the camera. What should I do to legally keep the copyright ?

--
Gaetan J.

aaron said:

i can't believe that a studio owner, a working pro, is not more
aware then this! when and where has this been proven time and again
in US courts? the fact is that every day people press the shutter
who don't own the copyright! there are famous fashion photographers
(close to your field, i'm surprised you don't know this!) who
routinely have assistants trip the shutter, but it's sitll their
work, they're the one's hired and contracted, it's their equipment,
they create the set up, it's all done in his name. what about
weddings shot every day? the hired shooter will often have
assistants or associate shooters not taking "the" shot, but
actually using different cameras taking secondary or candid shots
essentially under their own direction and creative decision making
on the particular shots but still under the overall umbrella of his
shoot, his job, and the main shooter still owns all the copyrights
unless he's agreed otherwise. these are either implicit by
circumstance or explicitly agreed to work for hire situations

Click to expand...

People seem to be having problems accepting the fact of, acting as an agent or acting on a person's behalf does not come with the same rights as the intent of the primary person.

In this case the person was asked to act as an agent to trip the shutter and nothing more. The individual had no more role in the capture of the image then to be a shutter release and after the role was perfected, laid no claim to the image. The claim came after the fact when money became a possible issue. The fact that he was clumsy and tripped has no bearing as to the role that he was requested to played as an unpaid agent for the photographer. This point seems to be upsetting to some as they want agent status to migrate over to the same status as the primary individual and the courts don't see life in these terms.

If you were asked to be a shutter release, then that's all you are as to your claim on the copyright of the image as the photographer, was not able to trip the shutter for what ever reason (didn't know how self-timer worked).

The issue of the plane is nothing more then a happenstance of the moment not some deep seated, subconscience, reaction to his environment around him that caused him to purposefully trip the shutter with the intent of getting the plane in the image.

People argue these points because they want to make sure they have the widest leeway at being irresponsible and yet still be included in the pie.

It's called greed.

aaron said:

now, for more laymans opinion, the court would have to find whom it
considers "the photographer" and whom "the creator" in this case.
if you read the copyright law on work for hire there are factors
such as is the work being done as part of the shooters job? and who
owns the equipment? in this case there is no employer employee
relationship and no independant contractor relationship either, yet
some of the principals and circumstances involved in making those
determinations are involved here.

Click to expand...

In this case the favor to the group/photographer was the consideration and the unpaid agent status came about by the photographer requesting the friend, who had already been in another image, to step out of the scene and act on the photographer's behalf as a shutter release.

Nothing more. The tripping doesn't even come into the consideration as he was only correcting an error on his part, not making a purposeful attempt to include the plane.

Now if he had said, "Look a falling plane." and brought the camera purposefully around to make the image, then it would be different as the image capture was done on his own volition without intervention by direction.

I can't believe people consider this an arguable point.

This thread was started to discuss the myths, biases and legal stance on copyright as it pertains to photography. Thank you for your participation.

The real situation has no such controversy...

The plantiff's attorney has paid for using the photo in the trial. All monies made by this photo has and will be donated to a trust fund for a 16 year old survivor who lost his parents in the crash. The money may not amount to much but the principle behind the decision will. This decision was reached easily by my friend and I...our friendship is better because of it.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

Hey Ninad,

I have to say, this has been one of the most interesting and gripping threads that I have come across for quite some time... just what every forum should be - a good solid debate which everyone can get their teeth into!

It has certainly raised a number of very pertinent issues relevent to photographers everywhere, which from the varied responses seems to have no obvious clearcut answer upon which everyone can agree.

Law is always a tricky thing, and if it worked on guidelines of common sense and fairplay, all killers, rapists, paedophiles and evil people would be jailed for a very long time, yet this is far from always the case. There are so many quirks and loopholes that the basic issues often get lost.
Anyway, thanks again for a very interesting and stimulating read.
And good on you for donating the money to a very worthy cause.

Oh, and maybe if you practice a bit more, your friend might let you sing again...
Robyn

Ninad said:

This thread was started to discuss the myths, biases and legal
stance on copyright as it pertains to photography. Thank you for
your participation.

The real situation has no such controversy...
The plantiff's attorney has paid for using the photo in the trial.
All monies made by this photo has and will be donated to a trust
fund for a 16 year old survivor who lost his parents in the crash.
The money may not amount to much but the principle behind the
decision will. This decision was reached easily by my friend and
I...our friendship is better because of it.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

Click to expand...

I'm glad you chose that route. That sounds like true friendship.

My question is will you still allow him to take your family picture? LOL

D.

Ninad said:

This thread was started to discuss the myths, biases and legal
stance on copyright as it pertains to photography. Thank you for
your participation.

The real situation has no such controversy...
The plantiff's attorney has paid for using the photo in the trial.
All monies made by this photo has and will be donated to a trust
fund for a 16 year old survivor who lost his parents in the crash.
The money may not amount to much but the principle behind the
decision will. This decision was reached easily by my friend and
I...our friendship is better because of it.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

Click to expand...

--
DeeDee G.
http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/root