If a person takes a picture with someone else's camera, who owns the [copyright to the] photo?

[Edited on October 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2010 6:54:58 PM

just print doubles, rat bastard

10/12/2010 6:57:12 PM

whoever owns the memory stick

10/12/2010 7:00:27 PM

Joint custody. One owner gets the weekends, the other gets weekdays.

10/12/2010 7:01:24 PM

this kind of issue usually comes up when a camera is being passed around in a threesome.

10/12/2010 7:02:33 PM

the person with the bigger gun

10/12/2010 7:05:47 PM

q-fred with the slam DUNK!

10/12/2010 7:09:18 PM

I thought this thread was going to be about how people who think they are photographers because they own a camera/own a nice camera.

10/12/2010 7:14:43 PM

^ me too. And I was actually coming in here to poke fun at Kiwi



Specter took that away from me

10/12/2010 7:16:22 PM

photographer

[Edited on October 12, 2010 at 7:19 PM. Reason : 17 usc 201(a)]

10/12/2010 7:16:23 PM

^^^

10/12/2010 7:20:53 PM

my friends, this is a legitimate query.

imagine you loan your camera to your friend to photograph your band while you are performing, then he claims he owns the photograph because he used his creativity/expert techniques/artistic fortitude

10/12/2010 7:24:46 PM

whoever presses the button.

unless a contract says otherwise.

10/12/2010 7:26:06 PM

it sounds like you have people that you think are a friend but in fact are not - a friend wouldn't give a shit and would let you have your pictures

10/12/2010 7:48:07 PM

ITT, punchmonk gets all passive aggressive that I haven't sent her all the pictures of Maya...


or pokes fun at Randy...



or wishes iphotou has paid her some attention

10/12/2010 9:37:05 PM

if borrows your pen to write a check, do you get the money...

10/12/2010 9:51:31 PM

Quote :

"my friends, this is a legitimate query. imagine you loan your camera to your friend to photograph your band while you are performing, then he claims he owns the photograph because he used his creativity/expert techniques/artistic fortitude"

Once, I got sued for copyright by Uni-Ball because I wrote this really great poem using their ballpoint pen.

10/12/2010 9:53:19 PM

I see what you did there. You make a good point.

10/12/2010 9:58:41 PM

The person taking the photo owns the copyright.

[Edited on October 12, 2010 at 11:52 PM. Reason : However I think there is a grey area if the photograph was obtained via extraordinary means]

10/12/2010 11:51:15 PM

The point of ownership is taken by whom ever is operating the camera at the moment of capture unless a clear contract is setup of where the person gives up their rights to the image, such as an employee or work for hire contract. Just because you own the camera does not mean you own every photo made by the camera.

Now for the grey area part. Copyright, who does it first generally wins unless a written contract can be shown to negate it. On some pro model cameras, you can set your registration in the camera, but it doesn't mean a damn thing without proper registration; it just has your name on it, and again doesn't mean the person owns it if someone else shot it.

And again, it also depends on what you shoot as in some cases, the photos could be licenses out by a group or association. Like with NFL or NHL, the photographers there sign a contract stating that the images are under license by the association to the photographer so the ownership is more or less a co-ownership type of deal. This gives the leagues more control on what is being covered, but this is classified as a private setting even though its a public game in a public venue. This limits Joe Blow in the stands with a 400mm 2.8 to sell his images for publication/editorial or commercial use.

Quote :

"imagine you loan your camera to your friend to photograph your band while you are performing, then he claims he owns the photograph because he used his creativity/expert techniques/artistic fortitude"

Technically he would own the image, but if he tried to sue it would get a little messy. With this scenario, it depends on if your friend could be considered a professional who makes a living (which is like 75% of your total income in a year); he could argue that it is his ownership and sue if he can show that there was a loss of income/revenue associated to the particular job or infringement, even if he said orally that the pictures would be yours with your camera.

In most cases that involves something this informal, which happens a lot for amateur and semi-pro shooters, they probably don't know a damn thing about ownership or copyright and this won't be an issue; but there's a general fair use clause that is really makes this a grey area. If it's a small band and a good friend, I wouldn't worry about a contract, but if the band is like Red Hot Chili Peppers, then you might run into some issues and a signed contract, or a few, should be worked out before hand.

And yes, if this goes to court, you will be judged on if your work looks professional or not; if a "friend" hands you a camera to take a quick snap shot, it probably won't past mustard, specially if it's a simple point & shoot. Even I would just quickly dismiss the case if the "friend" is suing for damages and looking for monetary value because of the "improper" use of the photograph in that situation.

Now if a DSLR was used and the images look professional, maybe some extra lighting was brought in and the picture was more of a planned photo shoot, then it would go the other way; even if all the equipment was owned by the band, unless all of the professional expertise was provided by one of the members of the band and you just needed a guy pressing the button. In that case, you would be smart enough to setup the camera on a tripod and a remote trigger tethered to a computer and a 40" display.


Speaking about this, I had this exact situation arise (well almost), but I was assisting a photographer, not the one shooting. A good friend of the guy I worked for was in a small local band in Florida and asked my Boss to take a quick snap shot, but he ended up doing a whole photo shoot like he does for big clients. It was a cool gig and did some fun stuff, pics turned out great. Before hand, it was a bit informal since the two were old highschool buddies, but once the shoot finished, everyone in the band signed contracts and model releases to the photographer stating that all the photographs was owned by the photographer, but the contract stated that the he would license the finished pictures for the band to use for their promo free of charge as he stated it as a TFP, or known as a trade for print, contact. It's just like bartering, but in contract form. He does this even with close friends to cover his and his friends ass.

Oh, and here's a link to the pics.

http://petebarrettphoto.blogspot.com/2010/05/hornit-1.html

http://petebarrettphoto.blogspot.com/2010/05/hornit-2.html


Another note, if you do post processing work, say in photoshop, ownership could change hands if enough evidence is shown that it's a new work of art and not a simple derivative, but usually you'd need a signed release form stating that you were allowed to use the original photos. This could morph into a co-ownership if a photographer and digital retoucher is used, but generally in the pro world, a digital retoucher is contracted as a work for hire and doesn't have any ownership to the said body of work.

[Edited on October 13, 2010 at 12:43 AM. Reason : ]

10/13/2010 12:24:24 AM