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

[Ninad]

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

 

[Donian]

um could we see the picture?
I have no idea about the legal side of it.

Did the pilot survive?

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

The copyright is his.

However, YOU own the "negative" of it.

Stalemate.

And, yes, this is the legal predicament, I believe. Neither of you can sell the photo without the other's consent in some way, shape or form.

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

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

 

[Gary T]

My opinion would be that both of you own the image. What do others have to say?

Gary T

--
http://www.pbase.com/winterfire
http://www.goldfrost.com

 

[Gary T]

Wonderful shots you have there on PBase

Gary T

--
http://www.pbase.com/winterfire
http://www.goldfrost.com

 

[Abargath]

Since I don´t live in the states over here (Iceland) I think he would own the copyright and you own the negative/data so you would have to come to some kind of arrangement.

But seriously, since this is a friend of yours why don´t you just share the money? After all it seems like the picture wouldn´t have been made had you not had the camera at the location and had he not "re-framed" the shot and pressed the shutter. Sounds the most resonable to me since real friendship can´t be bought by money anyways... Just my opinion.

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

 

[sidmind]

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

--
http://pbase.com/sidmind

 

[Rob Martin]

sounds rediculous....

are you sure you're not having us on?

It's like the story of the Son who shot his mother as she fell past the window (she jumped). It's an old one but a good one.

Anyway, if it's your friend, hyperthetically, then an arrangement is easy.

Besides, it's a personal tradgedy for some people in a plane, do you feel better quibbling about who makes money off their deaths?

sheesh!!

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

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

 

[Ninad]

Sorry I didn't explain why I didn't include the photo...

Since the time this photo was taken three months ago, it has gotten quite a bit complicated. I had initially contacted couple of the local newspapers about the photo but I had waited 3 days after the event because I wasn't sure whether I should or not, and neither newspaper seemed that interested. I had forgotten about the whole thing until about 3-4 weeks ago, I got a call from an attorney who is representing one of the surviving passengers of this plane crash. This passenger is apparantly suing the pilot, the company which maintains the plane and the plane manufacturer. The attorney had heard that I had a photo of the plane coming down and wanted to see and possibly purchase it from me. He did finally see the photo and offered me a descent amount of money for it but has restricted me from showing it anywhere until after the trial. After I told him that I was not the one who took the photo, but was the one who had the original and owned the camera, he said that I would be the legal owner of the photo but that he had to have my friend appear in court to testify what, if anything, he had seen or heard since he physically took the picture.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[Nicholas81360]

....................when your friend let you pick up your camera and tripod after he took the picture in question WITHOUT making any claim to the image at that time, he silently relinquished all rights to the image by permitting you to walk off with it to process it and print it wiithout his stated claim or 'supervision'.

I am no attorney (thank heaven) but good law is based on common sense, something I hope my suggested answer includes.

Any way it is a great thread question.

Nicholas, http://www.nickphoto123.com
--
The joy of photography is being there when you take the picture.

 

[Ninad]

Please see...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5092679

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

This has been discussed before.

Your friend owns the copyright.

You own the actual "negative".

You can't sell ilt without permission of the copyright holder.

He can't sell it because he doesn't have a copy of it to sell.

Settle. 50/50 sounds fair.

Sorry I didn't explain why I didn't include the photo...

Since the time this photo was taken three months ago, it has gotten
quite a bit complicated. I had initially contacted couple of the
local newspapers about the photo but I had waited 3 days after the
event because I wasn't sure whether I should or not, and neither
newspaper seemed that interested. I had forgotten about the whole
thing until about 3-4 weeks ago, I got a call from an attorney who
is representing one of the surviving passengers of this plane
crash. This passenger is apparantly suing the pilot, the company
which maintains the plane and the plane manufacturer. The attorney
had heard that I had a photo of the plane coming down and wanted to
see and possibly purchase it from me. He did finally see the photo
and offered me a descent amount of money for it but has restricted
me from showing it anywhere until after the trial. After I told him
that I was not the one who took the photo, but was the one who had
the original and owned the camera, he said that I would be the
legal owner of the photo but that he had to have my friend appear
in court to testify what, if anything, he had seen or heard since
he physically took the picture.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

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

 

[Ninad]

I guess there one in every crowd ( or many in this forum)...

You've missed the point...

The issue is about ownership, not about the money. The problem is that when money gets offered, the legality of ownership becomes an issue.

So that photo with the 2nd plane crashing into the World trade center that made into life magazine...you prbably think that's a con too..eh?

I would rather not be invoved with things like this...I would never be a good photojournalist.

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

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

 

[Ninad]

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

 

[Ninad]

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

Nope, not everybody will agree with 50/50.

But, until a decision is made, the photo can't be sold.

I guess it boils down to which one wants the sell the photo the most. He's the one probably most willing to settle for less than 50/50.

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.
--

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

 

[Rob Martin]

Ownership and money are the same thing. Whenever money is involved, friendship typically means nothing. It's sad but true.

It's just that your hypothetical seems a bit far fetched that's all. If it's true, fine.

As far as the WTC is concerned, there is photographic evidence and it wasn't in doubt.

You're on a forum and you're running up an implausible "what if".

There's alway one, as you say . . .

You've missed the point...

The issue is about ownership, not about the money. The problem is
that when money gets offered, the legality of ownership becomes an
issue.

So that photo with the 2nd plane crashing into the World trade
center that made into life magazine...you prbably think that's a
con too..eh?
I would rather not be invoved with things like this...I would never
be a good photojournalist.

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

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

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

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

 

[Ninad]

Not all agree that you relinquish your ownership of a photograph just by not making it verbally clear to all involved that you want your copyrights maintained. It's not as simple as that. The fact that I didn't take the photo is clear and witnessed by many. Ownership of the equipment alone means nothing unless you are hired by a company for company business and you have aspecific contract.
--
Ninad
...resistance is futile...
http://www.ninadartworks.com

 

[randy corbin]

In some cases, where pj's are shooting for their employer, using their employer's equipment, they have previously waived copywright to their employer, by agreement of employment. I know a photog, who shot a very famous shot, on his own time, but it got used in the pub. he works for......the image has since sold many many times over, in reproduction, and he never really made a dime off of it.

In your case, Your friend may not necessarily retain copywright to the image in question, as common sense would rule (hopefully) in a court of law. Suppose someone walks into a photo shoot, and snaps a shot, while you are taking a break, or setting up a shot, etc........with your equip.?

I agree that if you are friends, you could come to an amicable agreement.

But I don't necessarily agree that he gets copywright automatically.......and I have been studying copywright law recently........that is one thing I have learned....not always black and white......The equipment is yours, and the "shoot" was basically set up by you.........Ownership, (and copywright) in this case would almost be implied to be yours.....in most cases

photography is my obsession.....
http://www.pbase.com/randolph001

 

[Thomas Gardner]

The copyright is his.

However, YOU own the "negative" of it.

Stalemate.

And, yes, this is the legal predicament, I believe. Neither of
you can sell the photo without the other's consent in some way,
shape or form.

You better sharpen your law degree, the guy who tripped the shutter was only acting as an agent to trip the shutter, other then that he has no claim to the image. At no time did he say that this image is being taken for my purposes. That's like saying that you own the paint job because you helped a buddy paint the house as a favor and therefore should partake in the profits when the house is sold.

There's no legal predicament. There's a problem of a buddy that want's something that's not his but no legal problem.

The buddy can say that he was the one that tripped the shutter but that's it.

Talking about needing new friends.