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

[Thomas Gardner]

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?

Some here seem to have trouble seperating out the difference of agent Vs doing it yourself. Glad the courts are confused about this issue.

If you ask a person to act as your agent and the person is acting at your behest, then it's the same thing as if you had tripped the shutter yourself because the person was acting upon your request and not their own independent agent.

 

[Thomas Gardner]

I read the legal jargon, but the illdefined word in the above
exerpt is creator.

You are the creator as you conceived of the image, provided the equipment and your intent was to create the image. From there you needed assistance to trip the shutter. That is a mechanical act as much as a timer is, nothing more. And to say that since you tripped the shutter, the copyright is there's is pure nonsense and the courts will back you up on this one as the lawyer advised you.

Remember. As a lawyer, he advised you in a professional capacity as he has the lawsuit that the photograph will be involved in. He's liable for errors and omissions, legally.

We're not

 

[Thomas Gardner]

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.

It seems that the meaning of acting as an agent escapes some. If your buddy was acting as your agent (taking your place as if it was you taking the picture), then all images are yours. He used your equipment to take pictures for you, not himself. The images are yours and if you made money on them, then maybe you're feeling guilty because he didn't get any green out of the deal and you are

 

[DavidP #28649]

There was no attorney-client relationship established between him and this attorney.

Remember. As a lawyer, he advised you in a professional capacity
as he has the lawsuit that the photograph will be involved in.
He's liable for errors and omissions, legally.

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

His friend, the pro photographer, wasn't acting as his agent. Remember the part (in the link I provided) about the creator of the picture having to give up his copyright IN WRITING?

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.

It seems that the meaning of acting as an agent escapes some. If
your buddy was acting as your agent (taking your place as if it was
you taking the picture), then all images are yours. He used your
equipment to take pictures for you, not himself. The images are
yours and if you made money on them, then maybe you're feeling
guilty because he didn't get any green out of the deal and you
are

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

 

[John Mason]

Have a neutral party present this solution:

1. each of you get 1/2 of the picture - photoshop it in half and destroy the original

2. Then you can split the money but the picture is destroyed

Whichever of you like that solution and would destroy the picture to get the money, take them away and behead them.

The one that truely loves the picture gets to keep it.

I think this worked in a baby case once.

('cept I added the behead part)

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

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[DavidP #28649]

1. each of you get 1/2 of the picture - photoshop it in half and
destroy the original

2. Then you can split the money but the picture is destroyed

Whichever of you like that solution and would destroy the picture
to get the money, take them away and behead them.

The one that truely loves the picture gets to keep it.

I think this worked in a baby case once.

('cept I added the behead part)

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

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

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

 

[Chiz]

take them away and behead them.

 

[Rob Martin]

Donate the photo to the "Canon SLR Forum Benevolent Group" and they can then work out the financials, and pay out a dividend to all users.... (that are not posting on the Nikon or Kodak forum)

hehe

1. each of you get 1/2 of the picture - photoshop it in half and
destroy the original

2. Then you can split the money but the picture is destroyed

Whichever of you like that solution and would destroy the picture
to get the money, take them away and behead them.

The one that truely loves the picture gets to keep it.

I think this worked in a baby case once.

('cept I added the behead part)

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

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

 

[Jason Busch]

It all depends on the circumstances of which the action occured, and a jury would decide on those circumstances, whether it was more probably than not, that the owner of the camera was also the owner of the photo, or the friend.

The law may seem very black & white, but it's where we then take it to a jury of our peers, where it gets fuzzy and googley.

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

 

[Mike Price]

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?

It seems the whole discussion boils down to the question of who created the image - because he owns the copyright.

There are several factors to look at when determining the creator of a photograph, two of which appear relevant in this case.

1/ Who physically trips the shutter
2/ Who composes the image

1: Your friend tripped the shutter

2: You did NOT compose the image: the image that you composed was that of a group of people. The image in question is that of a plane falling out the sky.

Since you didn't compose the image you have no claim to the copyright.
(IMHO!)

 

[Paul Pope]

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.

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...

--
'Stop it now or you will go blind'

 

[DavidP #28649]

I agree.

Got any links to some of the precedents?

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.

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

 

[Eugene Powers]

Here is my opinion. Just an opinion.
I mage belongs to him, not to you.
The fact that he recomposed the shot is irrelevant here.
What is relevant here is the timing. If he did not move the tripod

and took the shot there would be no plane in the shot and would be no argument. Your equipment is just a tool.
In case of the painting the house the house belongs to the owner
and if someone helps to paint, paid or not, the ownership belongs
to the one who owns. If I borrow the tools from you and create
the art with it, this art belongs to me.
In my opinion whoever takes the picture is the owner.
If you were in his place and took that picture 3 minutes earlier
there would be no picture with the plane in it.
It is all the matter being at the right place and at the right time.

Eugene

Thanks Randy...

What about the fact that my friend moved the tripod and essentially
recomposed the shot...this goes towards asking whether having
artistic input such as an idea or setting the parameters of the
shot have any basis towards claiming copyright?

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

 

[Eugene Powers]

I disagree.
Simple test is needed here.
Can Ninad say he took the picture?
NO!
Can his friend say he took the picture?
YES!!

Case closed, your honor!!

Eugene

Ninad,

The fact that you set the camera up (i.e., settings, tripod, etc.),
and your friend merely re-orientated the camera to the same
position it would have most likely been if the incident of your
friend tripping over the tripod never occurred, and no obejction by
your friend, demonstrates there is no copyright interest of your
friend.

In other words, did your friend take tremendous efforts to change
the shooting location or camera settings? From what you wrote, I
don't see this happening. He tripped over the camera, and as any
reasonable person would do, positioned the camera back to the
approximate same position it was before he tripped.

All things being equal of "framing the photo", you own the
equipment, the tripod, the camera that took the photo, the memory
card the photo was taken on, and the photo itself. Your friend
waived any copyrights by not mentioning intent of ownership at the
time he took the photo. He merely took the photo, everyone went
about their normal activities, which implies that you owned all
photos taken with that camera, without any objection by your
friend, even though he helped you with some of them.

Later that day (or later on), when reviewing the photos, you are
the one who notices the airplane, and then mention money could be
paid for the photo. It is only then that your friend interjects
interest as the photo being his.

Too late. Your friend should have made "intent to own" before he
even took the photo. And the very possible fact that you could have
taken the photo regardless of your friend, is another factor.

P.S. I was bored so I came over to the Canon forum.

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

 

[Eugene Powers]

Kind of agree.
Friendship is more important than money.
My wife goes to Vegas once a year with her best friend
and share all of the winnings (or lose) between them.

Sell the picture and split 50/50. Better something than nothing.

Eugene

...another question.

Is your friendship more important than a few bucks? To me it would
be...so I just either would not sell the photo at all, or sell it
and share the profit 50-50 with your friend.

Sure, the camera is yours...but you would have never taken that
photo had it not been for him...and talking of legal implications
for such a thing is just very very strange for me...

Just my two cents.

Anyway post the picture, I am curious ;-)

 

[Arthur Li]

Although intellectual property law is not an area I specialise in, I can advise you that your firned has copyright. First of all, he "offered" to takle a picture (in other words, he was not commissioned or contracted to do so by you - it was "his" shot even though it was your camera), secondly, he "re-aligned" the camera (in other words, he composed the shot - and focussed badly as it turned out) and thirdly, he pressed the shutter.

The third factor is not the crucial one but the first and second factors were.

--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl

The camera is only one of the photographer's tools ....

 

[Eugene Powers]

In this case all of the people in the shot are creators according to you.
Whoever created the park you were in are creators too.
Some would argue that maker of the camera is creator too.
Again, simple test. Can you say you took the picture?
NO!
Can your friend say he took the picture?
Yes!

That is all folks.

Eugene

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

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Thank you David...

My friend and I didn't loose sleep over this decision. We have been
good friends and will stay that way. The issue was more of...if I
were a photojournalist making my living of photos like this (which
I'm not), would I have the right to make money off this photo
without legal recourse from my friend ( purely hypothetical of
course) because I was the owner and he was the taker of the photo.
Your answer is clear enough but not everyone agrees it is 50/50.

I don't agree. The only thing I agree to is that your friend is
trying to horn in on your good fortune.

It's not Ninad's good fortune. He set up a group portrait. He did not set out to take a picture of a crashing plane. That is a picture his friend took.

If you were on a vacation and handed me your camera as a stranger
and you got home and there was an image of a space alien on the
memory card, would I hold the copyright? Of course not!

Of course you would.

People show their selfishness and greed in many ways. Let's call
it what it is.

--
Ciao!

Joe

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

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

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.

And the person who ordered the shutter tripped was in the picture, therefore facing away from the plane crash, therefore having absolutly no control. Another person tripped the shutter, and weather it was purely accidental, purely intentional (Oh look, a falling plane!) or intentional at the subconcious level is irrelivant.

Copyright scaes are often decided based on subconcious influence.

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.

Different thing. In this case, a live person needed to trip the shutter, to make sure the group portraits were good: everyone was looking in the same direction, proper expressions, no one blinked, the group was properly framed, etc.

The camera has a perfectly usable self timer, if all that was necessary was "shutter tripping", Ninad could have used that.

It definitely doesn't fall into the same category as the "work for hire" arrangements of Dali.

There's a difference between doing a person a favor and a
happenstance occurs in the process and a deliberate act that being
denied.

Is there?

--
Ciao!

Joe