Who's the photographer?

[limr]

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.

You disagreed with this post:

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.

Do you, then, have no responsibility to follow your own advice and "dig up proof of your stance"? Other, of course, than saying that you are just repeating what someone else said?

 

[tirediron]

...If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.

Not if I don't care.

 

[snowbear]

IBL

 

[Didereaux]

...If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.

Not if I don't care.

lol That's a 3 pointer!

 

[Didereaux]

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.

You disagreed with this post:

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.

Do you, then, have no responsibility to follow your own advice and "dig up proof of your stance"? Other, of course, than saying that you are just repeating what someone else said?

No, what I didn't specify is that someone making an ASSERTION is not bound to providing supporting evidence. Not a good move in debating if you expect to win, but the point is that the one making the assertion doesn't have the onus of providing proof. However, it is long standing that the antagonist must do so if they challenge the assertion. There is good foundation for that too. If an assertion goes unchallenged it must be accepted. If it is challenged with proof the assertion is tossed. So really nothing more than a pragmatic approach to argument. all of that more or less depending on circumstance etc. I guess where this veered of track was that the only legitimately true statement concerning copyright law is that no matter what todays' ruling is it can, and probably will be, challenged tomorrow and probably overturned.

 

[Didereaux]

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.

"What if the gear is borrowed or rented, does that mean the image belongs to the company that the gear came from?"
Bad example. Borrowed or rented, legal possession/responsibility is transferred. Think rental car.

 

[limr]

Assertion:

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.

You challenged that assertion:

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.

No, what I didn't specify is that someone making an ASSERTION is not bound to providing supporting evidence. Not a good move in debating if you expect to win, but the point is that the one making the assertion doesn't have the onus of providing proof. However, it is long standing that the antagonist must do so if they challenge the assertion. There is good foundation for that too. If an assertion goes unchallenged it must be accepted. If it is challenged with proof the assertion is tossed. So really nothing more than a pragmatic approach to argument. all of that more or less depending on circumstance etc. I guess where this veered of track was that the only legitimately true statement concerning copyright law is that no matter what todays' ruling is it can, and probably will be, challenged tomorrow and probably overturned.

You were asked to elaborate, but never did beyond saying that you know an authority.

 

[Didereaux]

Folks, it doesn't matter a whit whether I or anyone else that reads this thread can post a truckload of 'evidence' or proof. The fact remains, and it has always been clear, that this is a LEGAL issue, and no one has come forward as an attorney and commented. No smart one would. The courts decide, and no decision of any court can be chiseled into some granite block and presented on some mountaintop is the desert to last for all time. This thread has become meaningless. Many who are in this I have seen often enough point out that some photo or other is bad or good, and someone els argue the opposite....until someone in control of their faculties points out that it is ALL opinion! Subject to the beholder. For art and such that is all well and good and you can actually learn things from such debates, but to do so on legal issues and to argue them is dangerous and deep waters. Lawyers bite, and courts swallow.

 

[footballfan993]

You all want proof?

Here are several articles relating to copyright, that I have gotten from credible sources such as the PPA.

Understanding Photographic Copyright | PPA

And an attorney See quote below: Photography and Copyright Law

Q: Who owns the copyright in a photograph once it is taken?

In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.

And from the government office on copyright:

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 2

 

[limr]

Folks, it doesn't matter a whit whether I or anyone else that reads this thread can post a truckload of 'evidence' or proof. The fact remains, and it has always been clear, that this is a LEGAL issue, and no one has come forward as an attorney and commented. No smart one would. The courts decide, and no decision of any court can be chiseled into some granite block and presented on some mountaintop is the desert to last for all time. This thread has become meaningless. Many who are in this I have seen often enough point out that some photo or other is bad or good, and someone els argue the opposite....until someone in control of their faculties points out that it is ALL opinion! Subject to the beholder. For art and such that is all well and good and you can actually learn things from such debates, but to do so on legal issues and to argue them is dangerous and deep waters. Lawyers bite, and courts swallow.

Um...what? So federal copyright law is meaningless?

No one has commented on the legal issue?

The part you were right about was that we are not attorneys. If anyone has ever paid attention to KmH's posts, however, it's clear he knows a shi$t ton about copyright law. And in the interest of full disclosure, though my practical experience was not in IP, it was a subject that was included in my paralegal training.

I feel like we've taken this off topic. So now there are 2 questions. Who is the legal owner of the photo, and who SHOULD get the credit.

The @Braineack 's monkey comment is I think more inflammatory than it is relevant. A monkey doesn't have the same rights as a human. Even if the monkey put in all the effort and set up the shot and took the picture, it would still not legally belong to the monkey.

So at what point does the photograph belong to the person who pushed the button?

What if you set up everything, and then they changed the aperture one stop and then pressed the shutter? What if the camera belongs to them?

Again, there are 2 questions here: legally, and "morally."

The monkey comment was not inflammatory but just a reference to this story: Monkey Selfie Can't Be Copyrighted, U.S. Regulators Confirm - NBC News

"Slater requested that Wikimedia remove the photo from Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images that are free for the public to use, insisting that he owns the rights to the monkey selfie. Wikimedia refused, saying that the copyright should belong to the person taking the photo, and in this case a person didn’t take the photo."

The human was the one who had the camera set up and the monkey pressed the shutter. Legally, the one who presses the shutter is the one who "took the photo" and thus, owns the copyright. By this reasoning, the monkey owns the copyright, but because only a human can own a copyright, it was ruled that the picture is in the public domain and the human photographer has no rights.

That's the legal perspective. So in your case, your friend would technically own the copyright, unless there were a previous agreement in place (a contract) that transferred the copyright to you automatically, regardless of who pressed the shutter.

Braineack's point addresses the moral, not the legal question.

According to US Copyright Law the person who raised the camera up to their eye, framed the shot, and released the shutter owns the copyright.

As weepete states - a simple document signed by you and whoever tripped the shutter can then transfer the copyright to you. (Copyright Transfer Agreement)
However, it would be unethical for you to claim that you made the photograph.

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

Look here - US Copyright Law

 

[limr]

You all want proof?

Here are several articles relating to copyright, that I have gotten from credible sources such as the PPA.

Understanding Photographic Copyright | PPA

And an attorney See quote below: Photography and Copyright Law

Q: Who owns the copyright in a photograph once it is taken?

In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.

And from the government office on copyright:

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 2

Another one (from a website of an IP attorney who specializes in photography cases):

Q&A – Who Owns the Copyright? – Updated | Photo Attorney
"Q. If I hand my camera to another person to shoot a few frames, who owns the copyright for the images?
A. Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Unless the photo is awork made for hire, then the other person – not you – owns the copyright. However, depending on the circumstances, you likely have an implied license to use the photograph for personal uses. For example, if you ask someone to take a shot of your family on vacation, you could do things such as print the photo for display in your home, post the photo on your personal Facebook page, or share the photo via email with friends or family. But you probably wouldn’t have the right to enter the photo into a contest or license it for commercial purposes."

 

[imagemaker46]

All legal bull aside, I have run this past several professional sports photographers that have covered more events than all the posters on this thread combined. The image is a shared image between the photographer that set it up and the person that pushed the button.

So many subjects posted on this forum are answered by people that have never been, or never will be in these situations. They can toss out all the read knowledge they know, and that is their opinion, I respect the opinions of other people.

 

[limr]

All legal bull aside, I have run this past several professional sports photographers that have covered more events than all the posters on this thread combined. The image is a shared image between the photographer that set it up and the person that pushed the button.

So many subjects posted on this forum are answered by people that have never been, or never will be in these situations. They can toss out all the read knowledge they know, and that is their opinion, I respect the opinions of other people.

This doesn't contradict anything that's been said about the legality of it. I think it was weepete who mentioned an agreement before any work is created, and it sounds like in the situations you've mentioned, there's already an implied (or even explicit) agreement.

Q&A – Who Owns the Copyright? – Updated | Photo Attorney
"In general, when the shutter on a camera is tripped to make a photo, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. In the situation here, did you and the person who fired the shutter have the knowledge and intention that each of your contributions would be merged as an inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole (i.e., the photo)? Did you collaborate with the other to make the shot? Did the person who tripped the shutter contribute copyrightable expression? Maybe not here. But do you want to have to litigate this? Read more about this in my June 17, 2005 blog."

And from the June 17, 2005 blog:
Photo Attorney: Joint Copyright Issues - When You Work With Someone Else
"Instead, for a photograph's copyright to be jointly held with someone other than the photographer, both the photographer and the contributors must have intended at the time the photograph was made to be joint authors. Specifically, the Copyright Act of 1976 states that a joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or inter-dependent parts of a unitary whole." This question is important because when you share the copyright of a photograph with others, you have to agree on how it is to be exploited or licensed, and you must share the profits.

Regardless of the law, though, a contributor to your photograph still may make a claim for joint copyright ownership of it. While you should be able to thwart those efforts, it can cost you time and money and create ill will. So be sure that any documentation that you are required to sign for a job clearly gives you sole ownership of the copyright. And when you hire assistants for your shoot or for Photoshop editing, put it in writing with your assistant that you retain sole ownership of the copyrights regardless of the work performed."