who took the picture?

[Pugs]

That just leaves one question.


where
in the
world
is
Carmen's Pizzeria

1014 Church Street, Evanston, IL
(847) 328-0031‎

I hope that reads as I intended it.

I read it right but I have to be a smartass.

Dangit! Battou's too quick!

 

[Battou]

 

[AUZambo]

Who's on first?

 

[robertwsimpson]

In my opinion, you took the picture in both situations. Why? You said that you were the one that set the camera up with the proper exposure settings. You (I'm assuming) told him where to stand and when to take the picture if necessary. He just followed your instructions and pressed a button. If we're talking about you taking a shot that nets you some serious money, start worrying the legalities. For a forum post though, I don't see how you would get trouble from the mods or your friend.

Edit: He = She and Him = Her.

Also, I always pay in Papa Johns as well. I work there so I get a 50% discount.

that's the way I see it.


and if you get a 50% discount, I should get twice as much pizza.

 

[robertwsimpson]

There's one on Church and Maple in Evanston (just North of Chicago) and another on Sheridan Rd near the Loyola campus in Rogers Park (in Chicago). :lmao:

 

[Gaerek]

In my opinion, you took the picture in both situations. Why? You said that you were the one that set the camera up with the proper exposure settings. You (I'm assuming) told him where to stand and when to take the picture if necessary. He just followed your instructions and pressed a button. If we're talking about you taking a shot that nets you some serious money, start worrying the legalities. For a forum post though, I don't see how you would get trouble from the mods or your friend.

Edit: He = She and Him = Her.

Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but isn't there more to taking a picture than setting up the camera with the proper exposure settings? Maybe the camera was set up by the OP, but does that mean the camera is the photographer when it's on Auto mode? (Just following the same logic.)

Last I checked, composition is just as important as camera settings, and it's pretty hard to compose a shot when someone else is at the viewfinder.

Just something to consider...

EDIT: And I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily think the OP was wrong posting the pics in the other thread, but I think this thread illustrates just how fine a line this really is.

 

[SrBiscuit]

for the record, robert...you had every right to post those.
the person that took them was no more than a tripod, for lack of a better word.

gaerek, i agree with you about composition, but im doubting that robert (being a photo enthusiast) set the settings on the camera, handed it to his "tripod" and said "here, take a cool pick of us" (im not saying this was your take on the issue at hand either. your edit made that very clear). i would be willing to bet, and robert correct me if im wrong, that it went something like this:
robert picked the spot, composed with at least one subject, metered, focused (or auto focus lol), then handed the camera over, and dictated where to stand, and what to include in frame.

i could be wrong though.
it happened once before.


i was annoyed for you in that other thread robert.

 

[kundalini]

who took the picture?

The person that caused the shutter to actuate.

 

[Inst!nct]

im so confused

 

[fiveoboy01]

who took the picture?

The person that caused the shutter to actuate.

/thread.

 

[Gaerek]

for the record, robert...you had every right to post those.
the person that took them was no more than a tripod, for lack of a better word.

gaerek, i agree with you about composition, but im doubting that robert (being a photo enthusiast) set the settings on the camera, handed it to his "tripod" and said "here, take a cool pick of us" (im not saying this was your take on the issue at hand either. your edit made that very clear). i would be willing to bet, and robert correct me if im wrong, that it went something like this:
robert picked the spot, composed with at least one subject, metered, focused (or auto focus lol), then handed the camera over, and dictated where to stand, and what to include in frame.

i could be wrong though.
it happened once before.


i was annoyed for you in that other thread robert.

Yes, that person was a tripod...a tripod with eyes, and a brain, and with their own conception of what would make a good shot. I think we're both speculating on this point now. I honestly don't know how it all went down, but I think it's impossible for someone to take a picture without adding their own flair (for lack of a better word) to the shot. It all boils down to who actually tripped the shutter. If you need a concrete line as to at what point is it one persons picture or another, the most logical is who caused the shutter to trip.

Let me give you an example. I was out hiking with some friends of mine. She had her brand new XSi and asked me to take a shot of her and her husband in front of a mountain. I asked her how she wanted it set up. In her words, "Us, directly in front of the mountain center of the picture." I cringed, but took the shot basically like that (and left auto on). Then, I took a couple steps to the right, recomposed with them on the left the mountain slightly to the right, and turned on Aperture priority to stop down to f/16 to ensure DoF. Took a shot like that too, then turned it back to auto handed her the camera back. I personally believe I was the photographer in both cases. Why? Because I tripped the shutter. Even in the first shot, I didn't compose exactly how she wanted, because I knew how bad that composition would turn out. I'm not going after her for copyright, or anything like that, because she's a friend and I was just doing a favor, so it's not a big deal to me in this case, and I assume it was the same thing with the OPs situation.

The bottom like here is, this is a fine line, like it or not. The mods had to make a decision. They had to decide to let a rule be knowingly broken (and it would be very difficult to argue that it hadn't) and open the floodgates for more people to push the line of what's allowed and what's not. Or, follow the rule to the proverbial 'T'.

I personally don't care that robertwsimpson posted those pics in the other thread. I also think the person who reported him did so, not because there was a rule being broken, but for some other reason (I won't speculate). If I had been robertwsimpson's friend who had taken those pictures, I probably wouldn't have cared that he posted them.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I also think the person who reported him did so, not because there was a rule being broken, but for some other reason (I won't speculate). If I had been robertwsimpson's friend who had taken those pictures, I probably wouldn't have cared that he posted them.

I've no idea whether there was any other reason for that thread to be reported either, but it was. On the basis of this comment by Robert

and get my fiancee's sister to take them for us. That being said, we got some ok pics, but the only thing that I have control over is the post processing...

it seemed a clear case of posting someone else's work and that was why I converted the images into links as required within the TPF rules here:

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.

It could be argued that in this thread that Robert has represented that he holds copyright or has permission to present the work. Unfortunately that wasn't clear at the time.

The above though had no bearing on my decision to close the thread, which was based purely on the fact that it was degenerating into a name calling session.

If you feel I've got this wrong, then so be it, I'm not perfect. You can though be assured that nothing I do here is based on personality or favour, I act purely in the best interests of The Photo Forum as issues present themselves at the time.

 

[NateWagner]

interesting. I do have the exclusive copyright, since I bought her pizza for taking the pictures, did all of the post processing, and host them on my flickr, which says explicitly that I own all rights to the images.

People on this site can be such a-holes sometimes.

Others are great though.

First of all, I agree, I think you had the right to post the images.

Actually, she would be considered an independent contractor. Unless she signed something saying she had given you the copyright then the copyright is still hers.

You doing the PP work, has nothing to do with the copyright changing.

Similarly hosting the images on Flickr does not give you the copyright. Rather, in order to host images on flickr you say that you have the copyright. Thus, technically unless she had given you copyright you shouldn't have (according to their guidelines) hosted them there.

The thing I see is that I am assuming she gave you verbal (verbal can work as a contract) agreement to use the images how you would like. She probably gave you the copyright, verbally, but it would never stand up.

 

[fiveoboy01]

That said, the title of the thread is misleading. It asks who took the picture, and that's not up for debate. What IS up for debate is whether or not the person who took the picture surrendered the rights to Robert.

 

[NateWagner]

^^^agreed^^^