Copyright musings...

[Vincent Lowe]

The other day, whilst stood on the top of the highest summit of the Coullin Mountains on the Isle of Skye, there occured an event which happens perhaps only once every hundred years or so - I asked my companion to take a photograph of me. On the way down, having successfully negotiated the delights of the Great Stone Shoot, the aforementioned companion (otherwise known as Self Perambulating Mobile Foreground Interest) and I got into a philosophical discussion about copyright.

 

In short - if I hand my camera to another person in order for him/her to take a photograph of me, who owns the copyright?

 

Obviously I argued that the copyright belong to me, the main rationale being..... 'cos it's my camera, innit.  He countered with the analogy that if I lent him a typwriter and he produced a literary masterpiece with it I could hardly claim copyright just because it was produced on my typewriter.

 

Discuss... if you've really got nothing better to do.

[MDM]

I don't think there is much to discuss - your companion, as the photographer, owns the copyright unless you agreed beforehand that you own the copyright. I guess you would own the image rights though so that might limit what your companion could do with the picture. 

[wiskerke]

Not the ape thing again. Remember with the ape, the photographer went to photography school; saved money; bought a camera; became a pretty good photographer; saved some more; went to Borneo; thought out this great image; set it all up got the picture of an ape/monkey taking it's own selfie with a wide grin and rightfully so, because he/she won the copyright from the photographer and lost it to PETA who stole it from both and who in turn were told by appeals court that they didn't have it either and that they had been it it for self-glorification from the beginning.

So yeah it's not easy: is it the finger that pushes the button or the one who set up the shot. With an assistant you usually arrange those things before they happen. Like before you're becoming someone's assistant or when you're hiring one. In your case I would say: settle it, like just like Slater did when he had become too broke to even attend the court hearings anymore and considered becoming a professional dog-walker.

When I briefly assisted it was before legal paperwork and the really great photographers/teachers once in a while said: nah you can have it: it was your shot. And one definitely knew when it had been just your finger and not your shot.

 

wim

[Ed Rooney]

Is this the subliminal reason I never take selfies? Because I don't trust myself to respect the copyright? 🙄

[Vincent Lowe]

11 hours ago, wiskerke said:

In your case I would say: settle it,

 

Well, nothing to settle really - it was just a light-hearted post after a few drinks last night.  He isn't interested in photography, doesn't carry a camera except on his phone which I've hardly ever seen him use.  I've promised him a pint or two if the picture sells though..😊

[noelbennett]

comment deleted and reposted

Edited April 30, 2019 by noelbennett
deleted

[Bill Brooks]

14 hours ago, wiskerke said:

When I briefly assisted it was before legal paperwork and the really great photographers/teachers once in a while said: nah you can have it: it was your shot. And one definitely knew when it had been just your finger and not your shot.

 

wim

 

I think all great photographers take that attitude. It means that everyone becomes part of a photographic ecosystem. Over time the master who mentored, then gets mentored by the former pupil, who has become the master.

 

In 2000 when analogue master photographers were forced to go digital, it was an opportunity for former pupils to payback the master. Many did.

 

What goes around, comes around

[Betty LaRue]

You hand the guy your camera and a dollar...or euro, direct him to take the shot, and you own the picture and copyright. (IMO) Otherwise he owns it. If you are his boss and pay him a salary, he takes a picture with your camera not at your direction, it can get murky.

 

We were told by a copyright attorney that the pictures he took with a company camera owned by his employer during the work day was my husband’s. Concept, etc. like a painting...conceived in the mind.

But the copyright was given to the company by a judge. This in the USA and dependent on whether we got a judge who usually ruled for big business or for the little man.

We had the bad luck to get one known for ruling in favor of big business.

Betty

[noelbennett]

I posted this query earlier in this thread, but it was my first post and needed moderation, before being accepted and the post got lost over the Easter period.

 

The query is are photos of  old vinyl LPs and book covers accepted on Alamy? I have noticed some such images here but I wonder about copyright implications. 

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, noelbennett said:

I posted this query earlier in this thread, but it was my first post and needed moderation, before being accepted and the post got lost over the Easter period.

 

The query is are photos of  old vinyl LPs and book covers accepted on Alamy? I have noticed some such images here but I wonder about copyright implications. 

Alamy doesn't edit for content so yes, they're accepted, but you warrant that you own the rights in your images, so you may be in breach if the cover is the focal point of the image.

Personally I probably wouldn't upload anything post about 1960.

[noelbennett]

thanks for the reply.

 

[domf]

10 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Alamy doesn't edit for content so yes, they're accepted, but you warrant that you own the rights in your images, so you may be in breach if the cover is the focal point of the image.

Personally I probably wouldn't upload anything post about 1960.

 I would have thought there is no problem putting up photos of record albums or books as long as you acknowledge that there are property rights and whether you have the release.

[spacecadet]

Just my opinion. But if it's a straight copy, rather than an image with the cover in context, it's potentially a breach of copyright and contract. It's not quite the same as just an image containing property.

There may be plenty of them available here, but that doesn't mean they're legally watertight.

[Starsphinx]

I always treat it as copyright is the creators unless specifically contracted otherwise before the shot is taken.  If I hand my camera to my son and he takes a brilliant portrait that is his copyright.   

[NYCat]

One ruling for our side....  https://www.pdnonline.com/photography-business/copyright-law/court-reverses-misguided-fair-use-ruling-restores-order-for-photo-copyrights/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PDN Newswire Newsletter 050219 (1)&utm_content=

 

Paulette

[losdemas]

16 minutes ago, NYCat said:

One ruling for our side....  https://www.pdnonline.com/photography-business/copyright-law/court-reverses-misguided-fair-use-ruling-restores-order-for-photo-copyrights/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PDN Newswire Newsletter 050219 (1)&utm_content=

 

Paulette

 

Good. Thanks for sharing. The original lower court decision was an absolute nonsense. How do some of these powerful people get to sit in those seats?

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, losdemas said:

How do some of these powerful people get to sit in those seats?

 

 This judge was appointed by president Reagan. This is the court.

 

wim

[losdemas]

30 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

 This judge was appointed by president Reagan. This is the court.

 

wim

 

Thanks, wim, but really more of a rhetorical question, born of ongoing stunned disbelief of the workings of - and what we tolerate in - this Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World.