WHO OWNS THE IMAGES?

[MohaimenK]

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"...

so is going to a court and saying "hey it was me behind that camera that took the pic! judge please, believe me, I know it took the pic, im honest I promise" plea :er:

 

[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.

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.

What is your source for that information?

 

[MohaimenK]

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.

What is your source for that information?

what is yours?

 

[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.

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".

For the longest time, a certain branch of the government that I happen to work for was not allowed to digitize images because it was ruled that the images could be manipulated, so instead we had to film them and use microfilm and microfiche.

EXIF is the same way. I could probably pretty easily take a photo of yours from Flickr and change the data to say I took the picture yesterday and it's copyrighted by me.

Hell, I could easily still unregistered copyright images from all over the web and register them as copyrighted by me.

Unfortunately, it would be all too easy.

 

[MohaimenK]

For the longest time, a certain branch of the government that I happen to work for was not allowed to digitize images because it was ruled that the images could be manipulated, so instead we had to film them and use microfilm and microfiche.

EXIF is the same way. I could probably pretty easily take a photo of yours from Flickr and change the data to say I took the picture yesterday and it's copyrighted by me.

Hell, I could easily still unregistered copyright images from all over the web and register them as copyrighted by me.

Unfortunately, it would be all too easy.

That is true, then again everyone would be doing it if they wanted to. Anyone can claim an image is theirs. I don't think it's that easy.

But again, it all goes back to my post:

"so is going to a court and saying "hey it was me behind that camera that took the pic! judge please, believe me, I know it took the pic, im honest I promise" plea"

Unless there's a documented contract w/ signatures, I think the OP is just SOL.

 

[vtf]

You use the camera with their permission and without specific direction, they are probably yours. They tell you what you can and cant take pictures of with specific direction its probably theirs. You steal camera and take pictures they are probably going to be the yours.
Goes back to intent use of camera I would say.

 

[Dao]

For the longest time, a certain branch of the government that I happen to work for was not allowed to digitize images because it was ruled that the images could be manipulated, so instead we had to film them and use microfilm and microfiche.

EXIF is the same way. I could probably pretty easily take a photo of yours from Flickr and change the data to say I took the picture yesterday and it's copyrighted by me.

Hell, I could easily still unregistered copyright images from all over the web and register them as copyrighted by me.

Unfortunately, it would be all too easy.

That is true, then again everyone would be doing it if they wanted to. Anyone can claim an image is theirs. I don't think it's that easy.

But again, it all goes back to my post:

"so is going to a court and saying "hey it was me behind that camera that took the pic! judge please, believe me, I know it took the pic, im honest I promise" plea"

Unless there's a documented contract w/ signatures, I think the OP is just SOL.

It depends on situation. Sometimes, oral contract is a valid contract in court.

 

[KmH]

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.

What is your source for that information?

what is yours?

www.copyright.gov

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

 

[MohaimenK]

What is your source for that information?

what is yours?

www.copyright.gov

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

yeah if you find the part where it says he's got a case you can copy and paste it. I am not reading through your 18 pages. sorry :meh:
Like I said, unless the OP got a contract signed, he's SOL.

 

[Village Idiot]

For the longest time, a certain branch of the government that I happen to work for was not allowed to digitize images because it was ruled that the images could be manipulated, so instead we had to film them and use microfilm and microfiche.

EXIF is the same way. I could probably pretty easily take a photo of yours from Flickr and change the data to say I took the picture yesterday and it's copyrighted by me.

Hell, I could easily still unregistered copyright images from all over the web and register them as copyrighted by me.

Unfortunately, it would be all too easy.

That is true, then again everyone would be doing it if they wanted to. Anyone can claim an image is theirs. I don't think it's that easy.

But again, it all goes back to my post:

"so is going to a court and saying "hey it was me behind that camera that took the pic! judge please, believe me, I know it took the pic, im honest I promise" plea"

Unless there's a documented contract w/ signatures, I think the OP is just SOL.

It depends on situation. Sometimes, oral is valid in court.

:shock:

 

[Dao]

That is true, then again everyone would be doing it if they wanted to. Anyone can claim an image is theirs. I don't think it's that easy.

But again, it all goes back to my post:

"so is going to a court and saying "hey it was me behind that camera that took the pic! judge please, believe me, I know it took the pic, im honest I promise" plea"

Unless there's a documented contract w/ signatures, I think the OP is just SOL.

It depends on situation. Sometimes, oral is valid in court.

:shock:

LOL ... I thought I mistype in my original msg.

 

[Light Artisan]

All your photo are belong to us!

 

[Chamelion 6]

The reality is that the images belong to the party that makes the best argument to a jury that the images are theirs. Anybody that believes they're just gonna whip out a copy of the copyright act and proclaim their images protected is banking on a miracle and a prayer. It's not the law itself that people here are divided over so referring to it is a moot point, the division is how the law is likely to be applied under a given set of circumstances and the document is no help in that area.

Think of it this way, we all agree that killing someone is against the law, how that get's applied in different situations produces a multitude of outcomes. If laws regarding homocide aren't black and white, do you really believe copyright laws are?

The law is only going to protect your work if you document everything. If you're working for hire, get something in writing. If you are intending to allow a limited use of an image, put it in writing. Dont assume a jury composed of random people is going to see your version of the situation your way.

It's not so much about what the law says as it is about what you can prove... And if you can't prove it, then it's simply about who a jury chooses to believe.

 

[KmH]

....I am not reading through your 18 pages.....

Yep, and that's why your comment about a contract must be regarded as speculation. And since we're still waiting for your source(s), speculation that apparently has no basis in fact.

Sorry, I didn't have them all in one place when I posted before, but a longer though not complete list to add to the above is:

Chapter 37 CFR - with emphasis on Parts 200-270 (Code of Federal Regulations)

Copyright case law (various sources)
http://www.expertlaw.com/
http://www.photoattorney.com/
http://thecopyrightzone.com/
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Various books and articles, like:
legal columns and articles in Rangefinder and Photoshop User magazines over the last 7 years or so.
Professional Business Practices in Photography a compilation by the ASMP
Best Business Practices for Photographers by John Harrington
Legal Guide for the Visual Artist by Tad Crawford
Black’s Law Dictionary

Plus following all kinds of federal court cases over a 30 year period.

In other words I can't point you to one exact quote. My comment, "Just because the metadata says it, doesn't make it fact, and could certainly be arguable in federal court.", is a basic tenet of law. Anything and everything is arguable in court, including contracts.

 

[teshabrownjournal]

I am use to using my own equipment; but my relative bought a bigger camera and wanted to get me to take images with it. If he found a job he asked me to do it, because he knows nothing about photography. Yet, when we discussed the images, he said they all belonged to him because it was his camera..Ummm, I did not like that sentiment so I have decided not to work with him like that. I am use to owning my own images because I sweat to do them. Then he wanted to pay me 50% of everything just because it was his camera. Again, I am use to getting 100% of my own productions.