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

[DavidP #28649]

A very interesting post this one... I particularly liked the
"intent to own" post. Just to add some more interest, here's some
other ambiguous situations I'd like feedback on...

1) I take a picture of the back of a bus. The back of the bus is
covered with a photograph/advert. The bus fills 80% of the frame.
Is it my copyright? What if it's 49% of the frame?

You own the copyright to the picture. Just because you own the copyright to an image doesn't give you the right to publish it, however.

2) I take a picture. Another person applies some photoshop at a
general level. What if they start to clone bits and get in to
detail? 51% of pixels modified? But then resize would do that...

You still own the copyright.

3) I take a picture. Another person takes a sky. A third
photoshops the 2 images together. Ok, that's complex... I'm
drawing from a real life example here of a photog who took Brian
May but the image editor brought in took a sky picture and merged
them and cloned and created an entire new leg for Brian May. In
the end, there wasn't much left of the original image!

You each own the copyright to the original images. Whatever arrangements you made determine who holds copyright on the blended work.

4) I own the camera and card. Someone else uses their lens and
presses the shutter. What if they also compose the shot and do
this hand held?

Whoever pressed the shutter owns the copyright.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

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?

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Dave Lewis]

I might ask, "Whose friend are you." I would suggest that it is something that shouldn't need to be worked out among friends. I doubt there would be much money involved, but if there were, I surely wouldn't want to look back on it five years from now and realize that was when my friend and I became something less than friends.

--
Dave Lewis

 

[Jason Busch]

DavidP,

What if you and I are in a photo, and you have a remote shutter cable attached to your 10D. You set up the entire shoot, but for perspective, you hand me the shutter release remote, because my hand will not be seen in the photo if I hold the remote. I then press the button and the photo is taken.

Is the photo still mine?

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

 

[Ninad]

After reading all the posts here on this subject, I am as unclear as ever...some of you think it's a no brainer...if you are the taker then you automatically are the owner. On the other hand, some of you feel that unless the taker ( who is using someone else's camera) makes it explicitly known that they are demanding ownership or part ownership, then the real copyright goes to the owner of the camera and designer of the shot.

Don't we have aq copyright lawyer in our group who knows the actual law on this? Please step forward now.

Thank you.

--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

Read my reply above

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5096094

It's as clear as day.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Ninad]

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner. However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod, choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my dilemma?
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

He didn't just "trip the shutter". That makes the case quite simple, IMO.

HE created the image, not you.

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my
friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner.
However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my
situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod,
choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I
therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my
dilemma?
--

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[vinke]

but i will need to review the picture. please send me the original file.

So here is the problem...

I was taking pictures of my friends & family at the public park. I
had set up my tripod, had my D60 set to the parameters I thought
would work and proceeded to take some candid shots. A friend
mentioned to me that it was time for me to get into the photograph.
One of my friends offered to take the shot. So I set up the camera
and took my place next to my family for the shot. As it happened,
my friend tripped on the tripod and moved it from the place I had
set it. I began to get up to set it up again when my friend
jokingly said that I wasn't the only one who knew how to take a
photo. So he straightened the tripod, re-aligned the camera without
changing the settings. Finally when we he was ready he started to
take the photo of us. Unbenounced to all of us, as we were posing
for the shot, a twin Cessna airplane was falling out of the sky and
was crashing a quarter mile behind us. After all the turmoil and
curiosity of the crashing plane had died down (no pun intended), I
finally had a chance to review some of the photos I had taken that
day. One of these photos was the one taken by my friend. To our
amazement and horror, the photo showed us out of focus but the
crashing plane was incredibly captured coming straight down! After
the shock of seeing this passed, I half seriously said that I could
probably sell this photo to some newspaper or magazine for some
cash. My friend who had taken the photo then half seriously
said...hey wait a minute, I took that photo...I should get the
money.
This situation brought a lively dicussion about whose photograph it
really was and who really had copyright to it.
Is the person who owns the camera and has setup the shoot, have the
copyright or is it the person who presses the shutter?
Is the fact that my friend moved the tripod and esentially
recomposed it make it more his photo than mine?
What do you guys think? Is there legal precedence to this?...I'm
sure there is but I just am unaware of it.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[vinke]

and i'm not so sure it's automatically your friends.

i do not think there is a clear answer. has anyone posted precedent cases to support their ideas.

i know one thing, and that is that something that seems like a slam dunk, if it goes to court, it might be a whole different ball game.

After reading all the posts here on this subject, I am as unclear
as ever...some of you think it's a no brainer...if you are the
taker then you automatically are the owner. On the other hand, some
of you feel that unless the taker ( who is using someone else's
camera) makes it explicitly known that they are demanding ownership
or part ownership, then the real copyright goes to the owner of the
camera and designer of the shot.

Don't we have aq copyright lawyer in our group who knows the actual
law on this? Please step forward now.

Thank you.

--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[GR]

So here is the problem...

I was taking pictures of my friends & family at the public park. I
had set up my tripod, had my D60 set to the parameters I thought
would work and proceeded to take some candid shots. A friend
mentioned to me that it was time for me to get into the photograph.
One of my friends offered to take the shot. So I set up the camera
and took my place next to my family for the shot. As it happened,
my friend tripped on the tripod and moved it from the place I had
set it. I began to get up to set it up again when my friend
jokingly said that I wasn't the only one who knew how to take a
photo. So he straightened the tripod, re-aligned the camera without
changing the settings. Finally when we he was ready he started to
take the photo of us. Unbenounced to all of us, as we were posing
for the shot, a twin Cessna airplane was falling out of the sky and
was crashing a quarter mile behind us. After all the turmoil and
curiosity of the crashing plane had died down (no pun intended), I
finally had a chance to review some of the photos I had taken that
day. One of these photos was the one taken by my friend. To our
amazement and horror, the photo showed us out of focus but the
crashing plane was incredibly captured coming straight down! After
the shock of seeing this passed, I half seriously said that I could
probably sell this photo to some newspaper or magazine for some
cash. My friend who had taken the photo then half seriously
said...hey wait a minute, I took that photo...I should get the
money.
This situation brought a lively dicussion about whose photograph it
really was and who really had copyright to it.
Is the person who owns the camera and has setup the shoot, have the
copyright or is it the person who presses the shutter?
Is the fact that my friend moved the tripod and esentially
recomposed it make it more his photo than mine?
What do you guys think? Is there legal precedence to this?...I'm
sure there is but I just am unaware of it.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[herb kauhry]

"The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary."

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Now, how does one define "author"

Don

HE created the image, not you.

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my
friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner.
However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my
situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod,
choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I
therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my
dilemma?
--

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Ninad]

GR,

Not a problem, we actually agree that I am the photographer in our group and my friend is willing to give up all rights to the photo as long as I promise not to sing at the next karayoke!
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[herb kauhry]

"Someone who takes, for example, a photograph, has the exclusive right to make copies of the photograph or to display the photograph publicly. "

http://adultinternetlaw.com/articles/copy_right_101.php

Don

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Now, how does one define "author"

Don

HE created the image, not you.

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my
friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner.
However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my
situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod,
choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I
therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my
dilemma?
--

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Robert Haxton]

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00400/002361/title/Subject/topic/Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Copyright/filename/intellectualpropertylaw_1_233

This article notes a 1990 Canadian court decision that seems to try to set a reasonable bound on "creator". A photographer whose pic appeared on a Magazine cover was found to have no claim to further use of the magazine cover as a whole , and in the context of the magazine cover, the image of the whole cover was compromised by a sucessful fair use claim.

It seems that here the court clearly considered creative input as significant to the issue in denying the photographer's claim. I suspect this court would also consider the "shutter tripper" to have a weak claim (though it may very well be that most courts would differ).

HE created the image, not you.

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my
friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner.
However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my
situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod,
choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I
therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my
dilemma?
--

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Nick Rains]

A great oversimplification..

Copyright can only be claimed by the 'creator of the work'. Copyright can also only be claimed on the 'execution of an idea or concept' not the idea or concept itself. This is why a pro can claim copyright on his work even though they are shooting for an art director who came up with the idea for the shoot in the first place.

Who physically presses the shutter is irrelevant. By your reasoning, if you use the self timer and DON'T press the shutter yourself, how can you then claim copyright?

However, you can say you CAUSED the shutter to be released by setting the self timer, as can the originator of this thread say he caused the shutter to be released via his friend.

In this case the 'concept' was a family shot which was duly executed. The Copyright rests with the creator of the work unless an agreement exists to the contrary.

Simple.

Nick Rains

So here is the problem...

 

[DavidP #28649]

And who TOOK the image in question? The friend did.

PS regarding "joint work". If you have an assistant who helps pose the subject, takes meter readings for you, and adjusts the lights, is he a "co-author" of a "joint work"? I think not.

http://adultinternetlaw.com/articles/copy_right_101.php

Don

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Now, how does one define "author"

Don

HE created the image, not you.

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my
friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner.
However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my
situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod,
choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I
therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my
dilemma?
--

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

I don't think Canadian law sets any precedents for US law.

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00400/002361/title/Subject/topic/Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Copyright/filename/intellectualpropertylaw_1_233

This article notes a 1990 Canadian court decision that seems to try
to set a reasonable bound on "creator". A photographer whose pic
appeared on a Magazine cover was found to have no claim to further
use of the magazine cover as a whole , and in the context of the
magazine cover, the image of the whole cover was compromised by a
sucessful fair use claim.

It seems that here the court clearly considered creative input as
significant to the issue in denying the photographer's claim. I
suspect this court would also consider the "shutter tripper" to
have a weak claim (though it may very well be that most courts
would differ).

HE created the image, not you.

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator. In your earlier responses you said that my
friend ( who took the photograph), was the copyright owner.
However, if I read into the definition of creator, then in my
situation, I created the situation by bringing my camera, tripod,
choosing the location of the shot and the parameters of the shot. I
therefore am the creator and should have the copyright. You see my
dilemma?
--

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Richard Katris]

By your definition of having enabled the photo to be taken by having the camera/tripod etc., makes you the copyright holder, then using the same logic, the weding couple should own the image as you couldn't have taken it without their having the wedding. I have had the same dilema in that I had a friend, a pro photographer, who offered to take some candid shots of an event when I was busy with other shooting.....now much later, if I want to sell the photos.....how do I feel? Like they are not mine, even though it was my camera, and film.... did it stop me from submitting them for an article. No. If they had picked them....would I have sharred the royalties.....perhaps, but it didn't happen. but I do think technically as the image was "fixed" at the time the shot was taken, and as he had control of the camera at that time, that technically I would agree that the other guy owns the copyright......but as has been stated you own the "negative". I think 50/50 is fair.

Richard

 

[Thomas Gardner]

................................closest to reality, IMHO.

Good day, Nicholas, http://www.nickphoto123.com

I beg your pardon. I was in agreement way earlier in the thread

I think there's a suit here somewhere as I clearly had intent