Copyright question? (Page 2): I saw this plot on one of David Kelly's TV shows. It all comes down to who actually caused the death - or pushed the shutter button. The man who pushed...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

PalePictures wrote:

A man pushes his wife off the 28th floor of a hote... (show quote)

I saw this plot on one of David Kelly's TV shows. It all comes down to who actually caused the death - or pushed the shutter button.

The man who pushed her off the building would be charged with attempted murder. Man, that would be an embarrassing story to tell in prison. "I pushed a woman off a 28 story building, and even then, I couldn't kill her."

ole sarg Loc: south florida

PalePictures that is a brilliant answer.

PalePictures wrote:

A man pushes his wife off the 28th floor of a hote... (show quote)

Novots Loc: Grand Forks, ND

PalePictures wrote:

A man pushes his wife off the 28th floor of a hote... (show quote)

Might be my most favorite reply to a question yet - I'm still chuckling.

hippi Loc: Sedalia MO

but the customer is always right no matter what

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

This is an interesting discussion. Years back I was hired by a photographer to assist him at a shoot. I used his camera, and was told what pics to take (and sometimes even how to do them). My understanding is that in that case the copyright belongs to him, not me.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

AzPicLady wrote:

This is an interesting discussion. Years back I was hired by a photographer to assist him at a shoot. I used his camera, and was told what pics to take (and sometimes even how to do them). My understanding is that in that case the copyright belongs to him, not me.

That's why people hire lawyers. Common sense would say that the person who took the picture owns the picture.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto:

Michael Lewis wrote:

The copyright will be held by the individual that took the photos when the proof can be made evident.
Though you might still need to talk to an attorney to know for sure.

edazz Loc: Florida via New York

The equipment used to create any form of art, be it a painting, song or a photograph, does not determine the owner of a copyright, unless the equipment belongs to an owner who is paying the artist (photographer) creating the work in question. He/she who creates it owns it unless he/she was commissioned to to do so by a 2nd party, who would then be the property owner. If you don't want to go through the trouble of officially copyrighting your work, then you have some choices. You can send it to to yourself by registered mail, email, or by using copyright software which actually acts as a middleman which dates and time stamps the image and mails it to you to prove copyright ownership.

Nikonbob Loc: Upper Chichester, PA

Under most circumstances, the copyright is owned by the creator of the intellectual property, in this instance, the photographer.

There are exceptions including:

1. If the photo was created by an employee paid for his/her photography, the employer is the copyright owner.

2. If the photograph was commissioned, the person or agency commissioning the work holds the copyright.

There are other more complicated exceptions that probably don't apply here.

A photograph, or other creative work, is protected by a common law copyright until it is first published.

anotherview Loc: California

Right, but the judge would likely consider who intended to commit the murder of the victim. He might also see that but for having been pushed to her death, the victim would not have died from a random gunshot. He could rule that pushing the victim from the 28th floor of a hotel resulted in the victim's death. Etc.

He who presses the shutter button takes responsibility for the picture and owns the result of this action.

PalePictures wrote:

A man pushes his wife off the 28th floor of a hote... (show quote)

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

The ownership of the camera is presumptive--testimony of wittiness could rather easily override it--you could also get into issues that Joe was working under the employment of Tom, one aspect of which was whatever Joe took belonged to Tom, and of course in real life Tom could very well be the groom. This all could and in cases where money is involved be set down in a contract.
Stan

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

PalePictures wrote:

A man pushes his wife off the 28th floor of a hote... (show quote)

Did the woman that was pushed ruled dead from a heart-attack by the coroner before the bullet hit her, or did he rule that the bullet actually kill her?

Sorry, been watching way too much idiot box lately.

Jim D

donrosshill Loc: Delaware & Florida

If there is a need for Copyright, it is the property of the shooter (photog). The fact that you loaned them your camera does not meen you took the image.

Example: If you loan your car to them and they wreck it who is responsible for that wreck?

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

AzPicLady wrote:

This is an interesting discussion. Years back I was hired by a photographer to assist him at a shoot. I used his camera, and was told what pics to take (and sometimes even how to do them). My understanding is that in that case the copyright belongs to him, not me.

Were you paid for assisting him? Or sign something stating that the photos belong to him? If so the copyright belongs to him, if not it is yours.

I read recently that there was a court ruling stating that the photo ( copyright ) always belongs to the photographer, the person that actually took the shot. Of course sometimes things can get hard to prove. It makes no difference whether you lent or rented the camera to her. As for printing the photos, you would be fine doing so. You would be acting as Walmart. They have no idea as to who photos belong to when they print them.

You probably made the wisest choice though sense you do know her, just stay out of it. Now, once the photos are printed, it is her responsibility to do the right thing with them.

Jim D

kiddrich

It must be winter...a lot of you have way to much free time...the case would never make it to a court...in general the copyright belongs to the photographer...Nikonbob covered it very well...however the question was with an older camera...as for new cameras photos can be traced to who bought the camera...right down to the UPC label on the box...this can put media photographers in danger...two methods are used to protect the copyright owner....one...we are identified by number and second lots of information is stripped before the photos go public...IF both parties claim they took the photo it would probably go to the camera owner....yes your photos can be traced to you with little problem...........welcome to 2014..........