who took the picture?

[robertwsimpson]

BTW, typically people who take images for companies, such as a newspaper (for sure) or probably Disney have signed a contract saying that their images are property of the Newspaper.

The only way that wedding photographers etc. get out of it is that they don't sign a contract saying that they are a work-for-hire, rather they are independent contractors, and they (the photographer) therefore retains copyright. In the instance of the disney photographer they probably didn't realize or forgot about signing the copyright away, but I'm sure they did.

It's the same if you are a photographer at Olan Mills or some place of the like. When you are hired there and are taking pictures on their behalf the images are then theirs (the companies).

edit: I find it slightly amusing that in the other thread you said to only critique the PP, because you had no control over anything else, and now you're saying you set up all of the images.

I didn't say that I "had" no control, I said that I "have" no control. Meaning that I'm not going to go do the shoot again, so please just tell me what I can do better while sitting at the computer, not what I could have done better while we were out there, as that really doesn't do me any good. But thanks for bringing it up!

 

[robertwsimpson]

Yep, they are the copyright owner.

However, that's really hard to prove if you don't have a copy of the image.

can you direct me to some sort of document that backs that up?

Sure can!

The document is: United States Code, Title 17, US Copyright Law of 1976. The entire document, including amendments since 1976, can be found at www.copyright.gov.

please cite more specifically the section that backs up your particular claim. Thanks.

 

[robertwsimpson]

well I see a few differences:
1. I "paid" the photographer
2. I know the photographer and she knew my intentions for the photos and verbally agreed with me that it was ok
3. I set up the pictures
4. I am not making money off of the pictures, but rather just wanting to post them in a forum for help from helpful people

I might not be the person to pose this question to, as I've already found some of my pictures on an actual commercial site and it really doesn't bother me.

Hope this helps!

I think you might be missing the point. First of all, I've never thought your friend would go after you for copyright infringement, or whatever. The point of this thread was you complaining that the mods linked to your photos (instead of having them embedded) and locked the original thread. I think we have established why the original thread was locked (name calling, inappropriate behavior, etc), but we were trying to figure out why the mods changed the photos into links.

Originally, you stated that someone else took the photos. You have never denied that. You also originally stated that you only had control over the PP (which you've gone back on, stating that you had near complete control over the entire process). If I were a mod, and I saw that, I would believe that broke the rule of posting pictures you don't own. You come back here claiming you own the photographs, (and maybe you do, but you haven't offered anything in the way of proof, except saying that you bought pizza for the photographer). There may have been a verbal agreement, but you certainly didn't mention that in your original thread, and without a written agreement (which you clearly state was only verbal) there is no proof of transfer of ownership.

Based on what you have posted so far, the fact that you went from only having control of PP to having almost complete control over everything, the fact that someone else took the shots, and the fact that you only had a verbal agreement (which they didn't even know about at the time anyway) I don't think the mods had any choice, but to do what they did.

Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.

Who caught the fish?

Nice try, but these two situations, although they seem similar, are very different. In the case of fishing, once the gear is set, and sent into the water, the only way to change it is by pulling the gear out of the water and changing it. On a camera, it's a matter of a couple button presses to change modes, or adjust aperture/shutter/iso. You also have complete control over the composition, which is a huge part of the overall photo. The photographer in the robertwsimpson's case was actually the person who had complete control over every aspect of the shot. And if you want an answer to your question, you clearly caught the fish, not your friend. Unfortuantely, the difference is, your friend didn't have hardly any control at all over catching the fish, whereas the photographer in the OPs case had complete control, since she was operating the camera.

Here's a question for you. Did the photographer set up the shot the way she did because robertwsimpson told her to do it that way? Or because she thought it made for the best shot? I'll help you out, it doesn't matter. The person holding, composing, and shooting the camera has complete control over ALL aspects of the shot, whether someone is telling them what to do, and whether they follow that advice or not.

first of all, let me clear up the whole "name calling" thing. The guy who reported the thread was the only person to "name call." I'm not sure how that makes the whole thread a "name calling thread."

Second, if you think that "framing" is the only part of "composition," you have a lot to learn my friend. it's about depth of field and implied motion also. That being said, I cropped every photo that was taken to reframe. So, yes, I did have complete control, since I set up the camera for the depth of field and shutter speed that I wanted and then cropped to frame the way that I wanted. I never went back on anything I said.

TO EVERYONE:

at first, I posted this thread because I was pissed, but now I think it is a very interesting topic for debate, with the practical application of knowing what is and isn't ok to post on this forum. There is a gray area (you can't deny that, given the 4 pages of responses to this thread) and it wouldn't kill us to get a little info out there for forum members.

 

[Craig G]

Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.

Who caught the fish?

Since you were dead sticking the rods,
1. the fish hooked it self
2. you fought the fish
3. your buddy landed the fish
Your buddy caught it, and you as the captain "put him on the fish". All credit always goes to the captain.

 

[KmH]

can you direct me to some sort of document that backs that up?

Sure can!

The document is: United States Code, Title 17, US Copyright Law of 1976. The entire document, including amendments since 1976, can be found at www.copyright.gov.

please cite more specifically the section that backs up your particular claim. Thanks.

You seem to be more familiar with urban legend than actual copyright law, and your concept of work-for-hire is also seems to be based on urban legend.

You'll get a lot more out of it if you read the entire thing or at least look throught the FAQ's section.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Sure can!

The document is: United States Code, Title 17, US Copyright Law of 1976. The entire document, including amendments since 1976, can be found at www.copyright.gov.

please cite more specifically the section that backs up your particular claim. Thanks.

You seem to be more familiar with urban legend than actual copyright law, and your concept of work-for-hire is also seems to be based on urban legend.

You'll get a lot more out of it if you read the entire thing or at least look throught the FAQ's section.

I never made a claim that I could back my position with copyright law. I am just voicing what seems like the right thing to me. Also, my beef is with the site and it's rules, not international copyright legislation.

Here is a link that might help you with citing your work.

MLA works cited formatting rules

 

[NateWagner]

oh please, rules for citing work is not necessary when citing copyright law.

MLA works cited formatting rules, or APA or Chicago etc. are all merely used to avoid plagiarism which is definitely not something to worry about when trying to refer to copyright code.

it seems to me silly that you have already made the statement that you can't back up that it is legally your copyright, and yet you're still trying to have KMH specifically cite the proof, and with MLA citing rules no less... lol seems quite silly to me.

 

[NateWagner]

I didn't say that I "had" no control, I said that I "have" no control. Meaning that I'm not going to go do the shoot again, so please just tell me what I can do better while sitting at the computer, not what I could have done better while we were out there, as that really doesn't do me any good. But thanks for bringing it up!

Ok, so for future reference, does this mean that in the future when we see your images we should avoid reference to anything that has already happened (such as posing etc, because you can't change it now) and just refer to the PP?

I mean what good is critique if you can't change the work? who cares about being able to learn from their past work to improve future images.

 

[robertwsimpson]

oh please, rules for citing work is not necessary when citing copyright law.

MLA works cited formatting rules, or APA or Chicago etc. are all merely used to avoid plagiarism which is definitely not something to worry about when trying to refer to copyright code.

it seems to me silly that you have already made the statement that you can't back up that it is legally your copyright, and yet you're still trying to have KMH specifically cite the proof, and with MLA citing rules no less... lol seems quite silly to me.

This whole thread has taken a turn for the silly.

I didn't say that I "had" no control, I said that I "have" no control. Meaning that I'm not going to go do the shoot again, so please just tell me what I can do better while sitting at the computer, not what I could have done better while we were out there, as that really doesn't do me any good. But thanks for bringing it up!

Ok, so for future reference, does this mean that in the future when we see your images we should avoid reference to anything that has already happened (such as posing etc, because you can't change it now) and just refer to the PP?

I mean what good is critique if you can't change the work? who cares about being able to learn from their past work to improve future images.

No, for future reference, if I ask only for PP critique in the opening post, then that is all I am looking for. If I don't specify, please feel free to rip my images apart in any fashion you see fit. If someone asked you how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, would you tell them how to grill a T-bone?

 

[NateWagner]

well, obviously going from a PB&J to a T-Bone is a bit of a stretch.

It's more of a you wanted a PB&J but only wanted them to tell you how to put the peanut butter on. And they included the Jelly as it was a part of the complete sandwich.

 

[robertwsimpson]

well, obviously going from a PB&J to a T-Bone is a bit of a stretch.

It's more of a you wanted a PB&J but only wanted them to tell you how to put the peanut butter on. And they included the Jelly as it was a part of the complete sandwich.

I had already put the jelly on the bread. That's why I only needed peanut butter advice.

 

[raptorman]

What many people in this thread seem to forget is that you still have an originality requirement in copyright law. The definition of originality varies from country to country, but stating that the person who hits the shutter will always be the copyright holder is an oversimplification. The creation should exhibit a more the neglible skill and if the only thing a person does is hitting the shutter, it's very unlikely that a court will consider him the copyright holder.

If I dictate an article and my secretary writes it down exactly as I say it, I'm the copyrightholder of that article, not she.

 

[SrBiscuit]

suddenly i want a PB&J.

 

[Dao]

suddenly i want a PB&J.

nah ..... I think T-bone is better.

 

[Pugs]

T-bone gets my vote! Rare... with garlic sautéed mushrooms... mm...