Who owns the copyright.
Jul 17, 2015 08:48:35 #
Technically, the copyright is yours but as the camera owner has the original (and you have squat) he is within his rights to claim copyright. With no backing evidence, what possible claim can you make? Winning a copyright claim involves having the original file in your possession. OR... have your friend take a photo of you taking the photo of them including the family and background.
That said, you offer/accept to take a family photo then take it, hand the camera back and forget about it. If you saw some fantastic shot, retake it with your own camera if you think it is a Pulitzer prize winner.
That said, you offer/accept to take a family photo then take it, hand the camera back and forget about it. If you saw some fantastic shot, retake it with your own camera if you think it is a Pulitzer prize winner.
ebbote wrote:
I would think that unless he mentioned in writing that you took the photograph the copyright would be his, his camera, his memory card.
Jul 17, 2015 09:04:41 #
Your chances are better of winning the Publishers Clearing House lottery are better than a photo taken of some guy with his camera as a favor then the photo being worth anything. And you are worrying about copyright? - Dave
Jul 17, 2015 09:41:22 #
brow3904
Loc: Upstate South Carolina
David Kay wrote:
I know this can be a heated discussion and has bee... (show quote)
If you want to be a nice person and take his/her photograph, do so. There are millions of other opportunities, go take another photograph for yourself and if it's good, profit from it. Second option: Tell the person you'll be glad to take the photo for them for a price.
Jul 17, 2015 09:47:40 #
David Kay wrote:
I know this can be a heated discussion and has bee... (show quote)
I found this by joining this web site , what do you think ?
http://www.photoguides.net/facebook-and-photographers-do-you-know-your-rights
Jul 17, 2015 10:25:13 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
GeneC wrote:
If someone asks you to take a photo for them, you are becoming their agent much like working for a studio I would think. Every studio I've worked for has maintained the copyright for photos I've taken.
From the standpoint of agency, your answer seems to be the most correct.
Jul 17, 2015 10:26:39 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
How about this: someone hands you their camera for you to do all the work and take the photo, how is that any different than someone handing you a canvas, some brushes and some paint, and you create a painting. Is it THEIR painting because THEY gave you the materials?
Jul 17, 2015 10:30:45 #
This exact scenario came up in a workshop I took on copyright law held at a local art guild. The copyright lawyer who led the workshop told us that the person pushing the shutter button absolutely holds the copyright for that image.
Not that it would get you anything, or be worth pursuing later.
Not that it would get you anything, or be worth pursuing later.
Jul 17, 2015 10:32:30 #
Jul 17, 2015 10:33:05 #
David Kay wrote:
I know this can be a heated discussion and has bee... (show quote)
In this scenario, it is most probable that you don't know his name and he/she doesn't know your's . I'd say it's his photo; he set it up; you were just a convenient button pusher.
Jul 17, 2015 10:35:35 #
Searcher wrote:
Possession is nine points of the law.
The shooter is being used as a (human) remote control.
Exif data can show copyright being owned by camera owner.
I believe in USA you need to register the copyright, that alone is going to be really difficult.
The shooter is being used as a (human) remote control.
Exif data can show copyright being owned by camera owner.
I believe in USA you need to register the copyright, that alone is going to be really difficult.
Not quite correct, from what I understand. The image is the button pushers in this case not the camera owner.
Copyright in the US is at time of capture, not required to register. Different rights if registered however.
Jul 17, 2015 10:38:03 #
See folks, that's why it's SOOO importand nowadays to always have one of those long selfie pole thingies with you at all TIMES!!
You'll never get your Pulitzer ripped off by some stranger, let alone that scumbag of a wife of yours!!! :lol: :lol:
SS
You'll never get your Pulitzer ripped off by some stranger, let alone that scumbag of a wife of yours!!! :lol: :lol:
SS
Jul 17, 2015 10:58:34 #
kb6kgx wrote:
How about this: someone hands you their camera for you to do all the work and take the photo, how is that any different than someone handing you a canvas, some brushes and some paint, and you create a painting. Is it THEIR painting because THEY gave you the materials?
After the picture is painted and everything is packed up to go home who gets the canvass? The painter? How would he pay for the canvass that had already been purchased by the other, besides all the other material to make the picture? He just steals it?
Point: Graffiti artist paints a picture (even with his own paints) on the side of a building - does he claim ownership to the building? Great way to become a millionaire, if so. But I don't see graffiti artists doing this.
Contract law says there has to be a meeting of the minds to make a contract. One party agrees to paint a picture, the other foots the bill for material. The time invested by the painter was gratis because there was no contract stipulating remuneration for his efforts of any kind. Yet it is very well understood that it would take the artists time to make the picture. No gun was held to the head of the artist to paint the picture. A picture was made so they had to talk prior to making the picture.
The property owner did not just go to a park setting up the equipment that he bought and then hoped an artist came by, sat down and just started painting.
I volunteer for the VA at times - gratis. If something I do becomes valuable after i have done it, do I have the right to claim ownership? I can try in a court of law, but most likely loses because I knew it was gratis and therefore giving up ownership.
Jul 17, 2015 11:17:17 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Copyright is an "intellectual property"... Meaning, essentially, that it is owned by the person who conceived and created the image.
So, in spite of what a lot of others "think", the actual owner of the copyright in this case - where you were handed a camera and casually asked to take a photo without any payment or formal agreement - is you, the photographer.
The problem you'll have in this case is proving that you took the photo and that it's yours. So, in spite of owning the copyright, it might not be enforceable.
If you were hired by the person who owns the camera, or even hired by someone to shoot on their behalf with your own gear, the hiring party typically owns the photograph. This is called "work for hire".
There's a weak argument here that the person requesting you take the photo "hired" you without compensation. A verbal contract was formed, but any contract is only valid with valuable consideration, and there was none of that here. There's also a weak argument that the resulting photo is a "collaborative work", if they helped arrange the poses and you were following their directions. Again, hard to prove either way.
Location might make a difference, too. For example, Italy has some work-for-hire copyright laws that differ from the U.S. The "default" position in the U.S. generally favors the photographer, while in Italy it's just the opposite and the employer is in a stronger position.
Any time there might be any question about copyright ownership, it is best to get things down in writing and properly signed by all the parties involved. Seems silly in this case, but would be the wise thing to do!
Here's another "what if?"
Someone asked you to take a photo of them with their camera. but something suddenly happens. Let's say a sasquatch steps out of the forest... and, utilizing your trained and skillful photographic eye, you use their camera to capture the first definitive evidence that big foot exists! Who owns the copyright? Clearly, the photographer does!
Now, when I take a great photo, I usually know it immediately. In this case, the smart thing to do would be to remove the memory card from the camera and stick it in your pocket, before returning the camera to them. Not very nice! But it would be far easier to assert your ownership of the image(s) if it remains in your possession, rather than the camera owner.
All these examples and discussion really do is illustrate how important it is to get things in writing... that a verbal contrast is only as good as the paper it's written on!
So, in spite of what a lot of others "think", the actual owner of the copyright in this case - where you were handed a camera and casually asked to take a photo without any payment or formal agreement - is you, the photographer.
The problem you'll have in this case is proving that you took the photo and that it's yours. So, in spite of owning the copyright, it might not be enforceable.
If you were hired by the person who owns the camera, or even hired by someone to shoot on their behalf with your own gear, the hiring party typically owns the photograph. This is called "work for hire".
There's a weak argument here that the person requesting you take the photo "hired" you without compensation. A verbal contract was formed, but any contract is only valid with valuable consideration, and there was none of that here. There's also a weak argument that the resulting photo is a "collaborative work", if they helped arrange the poses and you were following their directions. Again, hard to prove either way.
Location might make a difference, too. For example, Italy has some work-for-hire copyright laws that differ from the U.S. The "default" position in the U.S. generally favors the photographer, while in Italy it's just the opposite and the employer is in a stronger position.
Any time there might be any question about copyright ownership, it is best to get things down in writing and properly signed by all the parties involved. Seems silly in this case, but would be the wise thing to do!
Here's another "what if?"
Someone asked you to take a photo of them with their camera. but something suddenly happens. Let's say a sasquatch steps out of the forest... and, utilizing your trained and skillful photographic eye, you use their camera to capture the first definitive evidence that big foot exists! Who owns the copyright? Clearly, the photographer does!
Now, when I take a great photo, I usually know it immediately. In this case, the smart thing to do would be to remove the memory card from the camera and stick it in your pocket, before returning the camera to them. Not very nice! But it would be far easier to assert your ownership of the image(s) if it remains in your possession, rather than the camera owner.
All these examples and discussion really do is illustrate how important it is to get things in writing... that a verbal contrast is only as good as the paper it's written on!
Jul 17, 2015 11:24:46 #
David Kay wrote:
I know this can be a heated discussion and has bee... (show quote)
The camera owner!!
Jul 17, 2015 11:55:13 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.