Who's the photographer?

[limr]

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.

 

[Dave442]

Your friend took the picture, you assisted in setting things up.

I hand my camera to people, some do pretty good, others are terrible; my wife is better than me so I have her set up the shot and I just push the button to get credit.

 

[Dao]

Last time when there was a similar question was asked, someone also point out that the person who press the button has the right. To a point it even reference to a tourist ask a stranger to take a photo of him/her with his/her own camera and owner (tourist) of the camera is not the person who own that photo right.

 

[JacaRanda]

Food for thought.

If my camera is stolen with my memory card in it, and the thief takes beautiful landscape pictures with it; who owns.....DAMN, never mind. I have a Canon croppy camera. It's not capable of beautiful pictures.

Carry on. As you were.

 

[weepete]

draft a contract stating you own the copyright. both you and your assistant sign, problem solved. otherwise yeah, they would own the copyright.

or think of this example:

A privatley owned building is lit up at night, you rock up and take a photo using the auto setting on your friends camera.

Now one could argue that the lighting and building was set up by the property owners, the cameras manufacturer chose the settings and your friend owns the gear but you still retain the copyright

 

[KmH]

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.

 

[dennybeall]

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

 

[Braineack]

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

It's addressing both. It reduces not only the "art" of photography, but the legal ownership rights of your own work, to simply the person who pushes a button -- I'm sure the majority here would argue theres more to photography than pressing a button.

I reject the idea that ownership rights carry to the person who happened to click a button and argue that it's unethical to claim a photographer's work is now public domain if no "one" pushed a button. Siding with or against the current law, and/or interpitation of it, has nothing to do with ethics.

 

[spiralout462]

My wife and I were in the mountains of Pennsylvania this spring. I stopped at a scenic overlooked, set the focal length, set the exposure and handed her the camera to shoot out of her window. Every time that picture comes up I give her complete credit and am happy to do so.

 

[limr]

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

It's addressing both. It reduces not only the "art" of photography, but the legal ownership rights of your own work, to simply the person who pushes a button -- I'm sure the majority here would argue theres more to photography than pressing a button.

I reject the idea that ownership rights carry to the person who happened to click a button and argue that it's unethical to claim a photographer's work is now public domain if no "one" pushed a button. Siding with or against the current law, and/or interpitation of it, has nothing to do with ethics.

The OP asked what the law is, not what the law should be, so no, you weren't answering the question but rather arguing the ethics. You can reject it all until the cows come up, but it doesn't change the law that is still on the books.

 

[Braineack]

fine!

 

[beachrat]

Stop putting monkeys on a pedestal.
They might be able to fly spaceships,but they're lousy photographers.

 

[imagemaker46]

I've had this discussion/argument with photographers for years. I have discussed this with sports photographers that have setup several cameras on tripods(this was back in the film days) while the photographer that set everything up was off somewhere else shooting he had a grunt pushing the button. The grunt was responsible for the cameras, he had to have his timing correct or he misses the shot, the photos are his, not the guy that set everything up. If the grunt is too early or too late do you think the photographer is gong to take the blame for a missed shot, without any doubt in my mind, no, it would all be on the shoulders of the grunt. You can't have both ways and take credit for a remote shot that works and blame someone else for a remote shot that misses. Personally I find it arrogant to take credit for a remote image when the photographer isn't firing the remotes himself.

On one occasion the photographer forgot to load one of the remotes, after he left I told the grunt, he was quite happy that I pointed it out, as he would have been the one blamed for it, not the photographer that missed loading one of his cameras. I never used a remote without me triggering it.

 

[imagemaker46]

the person (or monkey) who physically pressed the button shouldn't matter.

what if I spent hundreds of dollars, and lots of man hours setting up a studio shot to capture a ballon popping. Part of the setup invovled an audio trigger, that will engage the shutter when it hears dB levels above a certain threshold.

if we go by "whomever presses the button", who owns the resulting image captured on the sensor?

or what if I travel thousands of miles to photograph monkeys in the wild and a monkey grabs hold of your camera (that would have never existed in this space without you) and happened to trigger the shutter and the resulting image was save worthy. Does the monkey get to own the copyright to your image because he pressed a button. Sorry, but no.

I'm sure there's a public toliet bowl metaphor here somewhere.

Yes the monkey owns the image and should get credit for it.

 

[mcap1972]

I think it is your photo. Taking and miking a photo two different things.