Copyright question?
Dec 29, 2013 13:35:54 #
speters wrote:
Nobody's unless one has a signed release form!
That has nothing to do with this at all. Release forms do not affect a copyright. More bad information.
Dec 29, 2013 13:39:31 #
hippi wrote:
but the customer is always right no matter what
No, they are not. Sometimes you have to fire a client. Some are so bad as to not be worth taking their money.
Dec 29, 2013 13:39:49 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
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.
There is a simple answer to this: you took the pictures giving you the original copyright, but assigned the copyright to him, so it does belong to him.
The question would come up if there was some completely unrelated, newsworthy event that happened nearby, and you swung the camera around to take a picture of that. Then the question becomes one of both credit and profit, and most likely both would be shared. A lot of times you can see pictures credited as "Jane Doe/Getty Images" or "Joe Smith/AP", so this would probably have your name and his company's name, and you'd figure out some split if a newspaper paid for the image.
Dec 29, 2013 13:41:22 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
hippi wrote:
but the customer is always right no matter what
The customer is not always right. The customer needs to be satisfied. Sometimes that means convincing satisfactorily them that what they want cannot be done. Other times it means they need to be satisfied by somebody else.
Dec 29, 2013 13:49:37 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
USUALLY, the person who took the picture owns the copyright. The ownership of the camera or card has nothing to do with it. The presence or absence of a model release also generally has nothing to do with copyright.
Dec 29, 2013 14:09:57 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Two topics with a lot of similar information, this one and
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-173056-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-173056-1.html
Dec 29, 2013 17:40:21 #
Michael Hartley wrote:
Let's say a girl I know uses my old camera, to take photos at her parents 50 Anniversary ceremony. Who would be the proper copyright holder? Her, or one of her sisters using the camera, or me for having the images on my memory card.
Not that anything would come up over them, this is just a discussion with another person about copyrights, and how silly some get over them.
Not that anything would come up over them, this is just a discussion with another person about copyrights, and how silly some get over them.
She could have rented a camera and lens from a camera shop and they would not own the copyrights, so you don't either. She is the "artist" who created "works" despite who owned the tools (metal sculpture), brushes (painting), chainsaw (ice sculpture), still camera, video cam, or whatever that she used to create the works.
Dec 29, 2013 20:43:13 #
Jana-TAS
Loc: Washington
It should be the person who actually "took" the photos. Of course probably with up to 100 or more being able to be held on a card of the camera if more than one person has taken pics you prob. are not going to know who has taken if you let multiple people take unless you just let 1 other person do of a certain other person. Either that or take out your card and pop in another for another person that wants to take with your camera. Rarely do I take the card out of my camera but I do have a back up in the case for if going on a field trip one is needed.
Dec 29, 2013 21:14:44 #
Well, as the OP stated, this is a subject that engenders some silly arguments. Based on the original premise - family members taking images at a 50th anniversary celebration - what on earth would a copyright matter? What are you going to do - charge grandma and gramps for the images of their celebration? Since it is all family, who are you going to sue for what?
The idea is to get images of a wonderful time in a couple's life and not worry about stupid copyright for images that likely have no value outside the family.
The idea is to get images of a wonderful time in a couple's life and not worry about stupid copyright for images that likely have no value outside the family.
Dec 31, 2013 22:19:04 #
Dec 31, 2013 23:35:06 #
CaptainC wrote:
No, they are not. Sometimes you have to fire a client. Some are so bad as to not be worth taking their money.
Agreed! The customer is NOT always right. We get that attitude as a result of the consideration of intended treatment of the customer. It is an irrefutable fact, however, that pending termination of the relationship, THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS THE CUSTOMER. The concept that the customer is always right was a result of customer relation policies developed by retailers Harry Selfridge, John Wanamaker and Marshall Field. The inane concept that the customer is never wrong was that of hotel owner César Ritz.
Jan 2, 2014 02:47:39 #
Dun1
Loc: Atlanta, GA
dooragdragon wrote:
no but he could be charged with attempted murder if the judge was so inclined as he did attempt to commit a crime .
That is called the doctrine of transferred intent, big legal phrase which has nothing to do with photos. It is what she intended to do or what her intent was.
The borrower intended to take photos in this case you loaned the camera, so whoever took of created the photos on your borrowed the camera more than likely owns them. The sisters or whomever had the camera in their hands, and created the shots that followed might own those shots.
Thank goodness I don't have a dog in this fight.
Jan 2, 2014 04:38:27 #
dooragdragon wrote:
no but he could be charged with attempted murder if the judge was so inclined as he did attempt to commit a crime .
Based on the same doctrine of transferred intent, the woman who was trying to kill her husband could also be accused of attempted murder.
Jan 5, 2014 00:23:22 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
USUALLY, the person who took the picture owns the copyright. The ownership of the camera or card has nothing to do with it. The presence or absence of a model release also generally has nothing to do with copyright.
Imagine this, a photographer, sets up his camera and with his memory card on a landscape and for whatever reason has Joe push the button. Then the photographer packs up the equipment and leaves, not showing the photo to anybody. How does Joe have a right to the photo, or sue the photographer for something he has never been in possession of or even seen? Are you saying the photographer is obligated to give Joe the memory card, or the file or print the picture for him. Or if the photographer does none of the above could Joe sue the photographer for deleting the file? How does Joe know or prove exactly the photo he see later somewhere is his, if he has never even seen the product. My camera, my memory, card my intellectual set up, my photo! Joe never owned anything or lost anything (except the court case).
Jan 5, 2014 00:42:42 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Cameoblue wrote:
quote=Los-Angeles-Shooter USUALLY, the person who... (show quote)
Your example is very different than the one presented in the original question. In your case, the photographer, not Joe, set up the shot, so that controls the intellectual property. In the original situation, the person borrowing the camera set up the shot.
Perhaps an analogy for your case is the author who records their novel into a voice recorder and then hands it to someone to transcribe. Only the author has the copyright to the novel, not the transcriber.
Note that LA-Shooter said "USUALLY". Your case is one of the exceptions, sort of.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.