WHO OWNS THE IMAGES?

[teshabrownjournal]

If you take images with someone else's camera, according to copyright laws, who own the images?? :er:

 

[SabrinaO]

If you take images with someone else's camera, according to copyright laws, who own the images?? :er:

Whoever took the picture owns the image. If I painted a picture with your paints and brushes, It's my painting obviously.....

Why do you ask? Just curious.

 

[MohaimenK]

Umm not if his exit data/ metadata says otherwise with serial number of the camera and te name is the person. Unfortunately if you sued you would get nothing.

 

[Dao]

It is not that simple. It depends on a particular situation. It is better to consult a lawyer that specialize in this area.

I believe there are situations even if you use your own camera to take the photos, you do not own the copyright of the photos.

 

[ClickAddict]

Check with your state. It might be different. In Canada the current law states that the person who owns the media on which it is recorded, owns the rights.

So I take a picture with your camera, your SD card - you own the photo
I take a picture with your camera, my SD card - I own the photo
I take a picture with MY camera and your SD card - You own the photo.
(So dont borrow someone elses memory cards I guess.)

This law is being reviewed however and Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act, is designed to change it. I believe to make it so that whoever takes the picture owns it. (Problem here is if you ask someone to take a picture of you with your camera, then they would own it.)
Not sure when/if this bill will pass or has passed. I know it was being discussed this summer.

 

[MohaimenK]

I believe there are situations even if you use your own camera to take the photos, you do not own the copyright of the photos.

That is true, but that is only if a company hires you to do work for them. If one is not hired by someone, they own the rights to the images. Unless it will pose threat to national security.

 

[Dao]

I believe there are situations even if you use your own camera to take the photos, you do not own the copyright of the photos.

That is true, but that is only if a company hires you to do work for them. If one is not hired by someone, they own the rights to the images. Unless it will pose threat to national security.

That is what my point is.

"If you take images with someone else's camera, according to copyright laws, who own the images??"
I believe if someone ask an lawyer this questions, the lawyer may not even able to answer the question without knowing the details.

 

[Robin Usagani]

The answer is .. it depends...

What if you rent the camera? LOL

 

[Village Idiot]

I OWN ALL TEH IMAGES!

 

[Village Idiot]

Umm not if his exit data/ metadata says otherwise with serial number of the camera and te name is the person. Unfortunately if you sued you would get nothing.

Person that takes the photo does, unless otherwise under contract to shoot for hire.

Paint a picture with my brushes and let me put ©2010 VI™ on the back.

 

[MohaimenK]

Umm not if his exit data/ metadata says otherwise with serial number of the camera and te name is the person. Unfortunately if you sued you would get nothing.

Person that takes the photo does, unless otherwise under contract to shoot for hire.

Paint a picture with my brushes and let me put ©2010 VI™ on the back.

But if you take me to court you can't prove that I used YOUR brush where if I take you to court and the metadata shows that my name, then I have 99% chance of winning. Of course unless a contract was signed. But the OP never mentioned anything about that. Remember, you're comparing apples to oranges. With a camera, it's data, with a brush it's "you said I said".

 

[KmH]

If you take images with someone else's camera, according to copyright laws, who own the images?? :er:

That will depend what country you are in. Your profile doesn't say.

In the US copyright law is Title 17 of the United States Code (17 USC) and the US copyright Office has a nice informative web site at www.copyright.gov.

There is no need to shout your thread title.

 

[KmH]

Umm not if his exit data/ metadata says otherwise with serial number of the camera and te name is the person. Unfortunately if you sued you would get nothing.

Just because the metadata says it, doesn't make it fact, and could certainly be arguable in federal court.

 

[MohaimenK]

Umm not if his exit data/ metadata says otherwise with serial number of the camera and te name is the person. Unfortunately if you sued you would get nothing.

Just because the metadata says it, doesn't make it fact, and could certainly be arguable in federal court.

No contract then you're SOL buddy. You can argue all you want and I can tell them you stole my camera or used it w/out my permission. I can make up anything unless you have a contract.

 

[Polygon]

But if you take me to court you can't prove that I used YOUR brush where if I take you to court and the metadata shows that my name, then I have 99% chance of winning. Of course unless a contract was signed. But the OP never mentioned anything about that. Remember, you're comparing apples to oranges. With a camera, it's data, with a brush it's "you said I said".

EXIF and other Metadata isn't exactly a good protection. Whatever it says in there can be changed in a minute with freely available software. Kind of a weak "proof"...