Who's the photographer?

[KmH]

Makes sense Keith - how about if they just hold the camera and I trigger it with the remote?

Look here - US Copyright Law

 

[photogeeks1234]

This might be a trivial question of semantics, but I was thinking about setting up a photo with myself as the subject. I know I could use a timer or a cable release, but I think I might have a friend help me out and take the photo.

If I set the picture up, frame it the way I want, and adjust the exposure, but my friend is the one who actually puts the camera up to her face and takes the photo, can I still claim credit for it? I don't mean legally, as I'm just doing this for fun, social media, etc.

Can I still say something like "I took this photo yesterday?"

Is it even my photo?

I guess now that I'm thinking about it, would it legally be my photo? If I were to sell it, would I have to give some or all of the money to her? Do I have to ask her to allow me to take credit for the photo?

Isn't a photographer "a person who takes photos?"

yes you can claim the rights and try to contact him gently ......):

 

[Didereaux]

Your equipment, your idea, the other persons participation was serendipitous, and by their volition to accept the task sans any credits or remuneration present or future. No contract implied. You win! Take that to the bank. They can make the claim, (you can sue on almost any grounds), but they will never win this one.

 

[footballfan993]

Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.

 

[Didereaux]

Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.

I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy! That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore. Good example of the worst kind of net advice.

 

[limr]

Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.

I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy! That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore. Good example of the worst kind of net advice.

And what are the holes?

 

[imagemaker46]

I'll go back what I said. If the guy pushing the button misses the picture, he will be held to blame, if he pushed the button at the peak moment and produces a great image, the other guy takes the credit? Who is responsible for the image? The guy pushing the button. You can all go back to "but the camera and remote belong to someone else, so it would be their image" What if the gear is borrowed or rented, does that mean the image belongs to the company that the gear came from? Using the copyright reason is going to be a grey area at the best of times. The best way around it all, push the button yourself.

 

[footballfan993]

Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.

I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy! That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore. Good example of the worst kind of net advice.

And what are the holes?

Yes please, what are the holes? Instead of blatantly stating that I'm completely "wrong". Which as I was taught from a fellow former 20+ year professional photographer, who is now a university professor (who's not a lawyer) is that the person who clicks the shutter, and physically produces the photo on film/memory, owns the copyright to the image.

But if I'm so wrong, please prove to me where I am wrong.

 

[Didereaux]

Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.

I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy! That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore. Good example of the worst kind of net advice.

And what are the holes?

Yes please, what are the holes? Instead of blatantly stating that I'm completely "wrong". Which as I was taught from a fellow former 20+ year professional photographer, who is now a university professor (who's not a lawyer) is that the person who clicks the shutter, and physically produces the photo on film/memory, owns the copyright to the image.

But if I'm so wrong, please prove to me where I am wrong.

Do your own LEGAL research. A professor, or a professional has no standing in a court of law. There is literally a ton of case law associated with this. What I stated in my first comment stands. It is a distillation of case law by a copyright lawyer I respect. As I/he states NOTHING exists that cannot be sued. But most of it would fail. Just depends upon how much money is willingly risked to pursue the outcome.

 

[Dao]

Would you please give me few examples regarding the case law you mentioned? I am really interested to learn more about them.

 

[imagemaker46]

In his later years as his eye site started to fail Portrait photographer Karsh would have everything set up for him by his assistants, he would then simply push the button. He was the photographer in that case even though everything was set up for him. A photographer sets everything up walks away and then someones else pushes the button, why would the guy that set everything up be the owner of the image?

 

[limr]

Would you please give me few examples regarding the case law you mentioned? I am really interested to learn more about them.

Indeed. I would like citations.

 

[Dao]

If I read it correctly regarding the monkey selfie case, the court seems to be already agree on the person who press the button is the copyright owner. However, in that case, just happened the person who press that button is not a human. So they argued about if a monkey has the right to own a copyright.

So if my dog accidentally knocks down some paint cans in my house and make a mess. And just happened one of the floormat has her colorful paw prints all over which looks spectacular. In that case who own that art work copyright?

 

[limr]

If I read it correctly regarding the monkey selfie case, the court seems to be already agree on the person who press the button is the copyright owner. However, in that case, just happened the person who press that button is not a human. So they argued about if a monkey has the right to own a copyright.

So if my dog accidentally knocks down some paint cans in my house and make a mess. And just happened one of the floormat has her colorful paw prints all over which looks spectacular. In that case who own that art work copyright?

Correct. The monkey pressed the shutter and therefore, would own the copyright. The only reason she doesn't is because a non-human cannot own a copyright. Thus, if no one owns it, it's in the public domain. That was Wikipedia's position and the U.S. Copyright Office agreed.

As for your dog's masterpiece ...
"Last year the US Copyright Office issued an updated compendium of its policies, including a section stipulating that it would register copyrights only for works produced by human beings. It specified that works produced by animals, whether a photo taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant, would not qualify."
Monkey selfie case: judge rules animal cannot own his photo copyright

 

[Didereaux]

Would you please give me few examples regarding the case law you mentioned? I am really interested to learn more about them.

Do your own damn research! How would you tell if I or anyone else told you pure crap. That is what is wrong with people today. They are to dammed lazy to do anything.!!!
Do the work, then if you find what I have posted is wrong you can post the proof. I stated that what I wrote is a compilation of an acquaintances work. That is second hand, from authority but second hand. If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.