Who owns the copyright.
Jul 17, 2015 18:37:06 #
jimmya wrote:
In your specific case the camera owner owns the photo.
It's as if you were working for them - they would own the rights to any photo you took with their equipment.
Ever hear the story about the post-it note? That was developed by an employee on company (IBM) time. The creator didn't get anything other than his wages because he was on company time. Same basic principle here.
It's as if you were working for them - they would own the rights to any photo you took with their equipment.
Ever hear the story about the post-it note? That was developed by an employee on company (IBM) time. The creator didn't get anything other than his wages because he was on company time. Same basic principle here.
That's not exactly the same at all.
In many jobs you sign a written contract upon being hired and sign the rights of development and discovery away to the employer. In the case of the shutter, there is no written agreement implying the rights. ;-)
SS
Jul 17, 2015 20:21:58 #
OMG... the lack of logic here makes my head spin around 360. But this is such an interesting subject to bat back-and-forth that I asked a legal scholar friend of mine
yes, an attorney in this field, and here is his response:
"In theory (not universally accepted), there are "authorial" choices made in picking the camera, the lens, etc. (and presumably they told you what to photograph generally and made the specific decisions), as well as in the composition and arrangement in front of the camera. So in theory, both you and the camera owner might be "co-authors" of the photo (and therefore, co-owners of the copyright). But the cases (esp. here in the 9th Cir.) have really muddied the water about when you have a work of joint authorship. So it would be less clear how this would come out...".
Panavision does not sell their cameras; you only use them by a rent or lease arrangement It's ridiculous to assume that anything shot in one of these cameras would then be owned by them Get my drift?
Then there is an easier one When you borrow a camera for your own pictures...or rent one The difference should be obvious. There doesn't seem to be a logical way for the owner of the equipment to have a copyright simply because the image resides the owner's equipment.
Someone else brought up the subject of a work for hire where pictures shot are owned and paid for by your employer. Sorry, don't mean to sound like "Captain Obvious" but it is a gray area in many instances. Keep it out of the gray Get it in black-and-white . The contract, not the picture, (Grin)! Oh well, maybe that too.
"In theory (not universally accepted), there are "authorial" choices made in picking the camera, the lens, etc. (and presumably they told you what to photograph generally and made the specific decisions), as well as in the composition and arrangement in front of the camera. So in theory, both you and the camera owner might be "co-authors" of the photo (and therefore, co-owners of the copyright). But the cases (esp. here in the 9th Cir.) have really muddied the water about when you have a work of joint authorship. So it would be less clear how this would come out...".
Panavision does not sell their cameras; you only use them by a rent or lease arrangement It's ridiculous to assume that anything shot in one of these cameras would then be owned by them Get my drift?
Then there is an easier one When you borrow a camera for your own pictures...or rent one The difference should be obvious. There doesn't seem to be a logical way for the owner of the equipment to have a copyright simply because the image resides the owner's equipment.
Someone else brought up the subject of a work for hire where pictures shot are owned and paid for by your employer. Sorry, don't mean to sound like "Captain Obvious" but it is a gray area in many instances. Keep it out of the gray Get it in black-and-white . The contract, not the picture, (Grin)! Oh well, maybe that too.
Jul 17, 2015 22:00:44 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
BullMoose wrote:
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.
Exactly. Good luck on that.
Jul 20, 2015 11:27:43 #
Manglesphoto wrote:
Why would you want to own the copyright? If you don't want to help just say no!!!
I second this. usually the person is asking for your assistance. Most often so they can be in the image. It would be much more rare for them to be standing there with a camera taking landscape photos and simply ask someone else to click the shutter instead.
Additionally, the response regarding you being their agent in this case is valid. Also, if you hand the camera back to them, they say thanks and walk away, you should not even try to have a claim on it. Go take photos with your own camera and quit worrying so much.
Jul 20, 2015 11:38:37 #
jimmya wrote:
In your specific case the camera owner owns the photo.
It's as if you were working for them - they would own the rights to any photo you took with their equipment.
Ever hear the story about the post-it note? That was developed by an employee on company (IBM) time. The creator didn't get anything other than his wages because he was on company time. Same basic principle here.
It's as if you were working for them - they would own the rights to any photo you took with their equipment.
Ever hear the story about the post-it note? That was developed by an employee on company (IBM) time. The creator didn't get anything other than his wages because he was on company time. Same basic principle here.
Ah, but Jimmy, every company I've ever worked for has an employee agreement that the company owns the rights to any original ideas produced by employees.
A person handing another their camera and asking that other person to take their photograph has not made any prior agreements regarding ownership of the image. Thus, the person taking the photograph owns the rights to that photograph.
--Bob
Jul 20, 2015 16:39:47 #
Another way to look at this is to think of the camera as just a tool. Nothing more that if a person handed you a canvas and a paintbrush and said "make a picture".
Why would the owner of that canvas have any more rights than if he handed you the camera tool? It's often said here that the camera doesn't take the picture, the photographer does. The photographer here also owns the copyright.
The original question was "who" owned the copyright, not "why" someone would want it. I agree that it would be silly to want that copyright of just a picture taken with courtesy of a person on the street, but that's not what was asked.
Why would the owner of that canvas have any more rights than if he handed you the camera tool? It's often said here that the camera doesn't take the picture, the photographer does. The photographer here also owns the copyright.
The original question was "who" owned the copyright, not "why" someone would want it. I agree that it would be silly to want that copyright of just a picture taken with courtesy of a person on the street, but that's not what was asked.
Jul 22, 2015 14:52:28 #
That's a great question. Right off the bat I can think, well you said yes to a strangers request, hey I sure you have done it too. Ok the couple is young or older, your at a beach over looking the ocean and you remember your rule of thirds depth of field and give them a great picture. They look at you and say Wow that's great with smiles from ear to ear, and now you want to say WHAT !!! Come on really
Jul 22, 2015 15:10:45 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.