Who owns the rights to a photo?

[rpmx]

Who owns the rights to a photo, the camera owner, or the person behind the camera at the time the shot was taken. While shooting a motorsports event last weekend, a person in the infield came up and asked my associate if he would take pictures for him, since he was also working in the program. He shot around 200 photos, with someone elses camera. I'm not saying that there is any kind of a shot of a lifetime, but while thinking about this, I would assume this could get sticky, if there was one.

[Ogrt48]

I'm going to say the person who actually pressed the shutter.

[Belmondo]

Of course, it you were shooting film, and it was someone else's camera and film, I'd say that ownership of the negative dictates ownership of the image. In digital, it's a little different story. Interesting question.

[Aylwin]

Hmmm... following the same logic, I guess the owner of the memory card should own the content.

I think it depends on the agreement (albeit verbal). In this case, I'd say the owner of the camera owns the rights because the person "asked my associate if he would take pictures for him". If, on the other hand, your associate says to this person, "May I borrow your camera to take photos?" then I'd say your associate should own the rights.

Legally, I don't know if that's the case but at least it makes sense to me. :)

[steven]

When you say "owns" I assume you mean copyright.

Copyright was designed to protect creative property to the one who created it.

An in the case of photos the creator is the one who framed the picture and pressed the button.

So my vote is firmly on the photographer (unless there is some sort of contract and yes verbal contracts do count sometimes :wink: )

[Seamless]

This isn't as unusual a situation as it might sound. Some case research might be enlightening.
E.g., your friend allows you to use her computer and printer to manipulate and print photos that you captured on your camera? [Note to self: read Kinko's equipment rental fine print very closely. Read childrens' universities' computer lab/yearbook/newspaper fine print. Ditto Google, Yahoo and other "free" services.]
Steven King runs out of paper and "borrows" some from a friend?
Your neighbor makes a sound recording of you playing your original music composition on the neighbor's keyboard? (Any of these could implicate commercial use.)

There are multiple rights ("bundle"), and rights can be held by more than one individual; people can also agree as to how those rights are to be owned or transferred. The scope of the rights, and any limitations, can be gleaned from the parties' reasonable expectations, I would expect.

In the situation posed at the top of the thread, if you were to come down on the side of the digital camera (and memory card) owner as the owner of the copyright of the photos, would you therefore still hold that the equipment owner has the copyright if photos are taken (and perhaps transferred from the memory card) even without the camera owner's knowledge (variations: with or without permission)?


OTOH, if you believe that the person who takes the photograph has all rights, does that mean that the equipment owner would be prohibited from keeping/printing/duplicating a copy? If you are so persuaded, then it would seem to further imply that the owner should be prohibited from (without permission) deleting files created by somebody else using the owner's own equipment.

The copyright owner gets certain rights by virtue of causing the work to be fixed in a tangible medium. At a quill pen level of technology, it wasn't so complicated as to who caused the work to become fixed.

The poll should perhaps add "it depends."

Jay Giusti

[elfyrulz]

can a person still sue us(photographer) if we use a picture (we took) with their face on a mag. advertisement, ect. without their knowledge or approval?

[Ballen Photo]

Who owns the rights to a photo, the camera owner, or the person behind the camera at the time the shot was taken.


With out a doubt, a photo is both the artistic and intellectual property of the person that actually took the shot. On the other hand, possesion is 9/10ths of the law. Try and prove that photo that's in someone else's camera, and on their memory or film is yours if they want to dispute ownership of the shot. :shock:
I just cant seem to visualize someone going to an important event and asking to borrow a DSLR. An aquaintance hinted around that he would like to take one of my cameras with him to Mexico for a vacation, and my immediate reply back was; you'd better get to Walmart and buy a disposable. :evil: :evil: :evil:
-Bruce

[DocFrankenstein]

An aquaintance hinted around that he would like to take one of my cameras with him to Mexico for a vacation, and my immediate reply back was; you'd better get to Walmart and buy a disposable. :evil: :evil: :evil:
-Bruce
:shock: :shock: :shock:

He sounds nuts. You should've asked him to borrow his wife sometime...

[Ballen Photo]

He sounds nuts. You should've asked him to borrow his wife sometime...

I suspect the scowl on my face while saying NO will prevent him from ever asking me again. :shock: :evil: :shock:
.......Bruce

[Jesper]

An analogous question: If a painter borrows brushes and paint from someone else and makes a painting with it, do the rights for the painting belong to the painter or the person who provided the tools? The painter, ofcourse. It's the same for photography....

[Aylwin]

Ahhh, but what if that someone else approaches the painter and says, "I'm kinda busy right now. Would you please paint that picture for me? Here, take my canvas, brushes and paint." Would the painter still own the painting at the end? I think it all depends on the contract or what was agreed.

[DC]

On the surface this sounds quite clear cut.

Owner of camera asks you to take pics on his behalf using his camera gear including CF card. As you agreed, them pics are his.

However,

You ask fellow photog to borrow his camera and put your CF card in it. He agrees, them pics is yours.

As I said, on the surface....but IPR is a tricky one. The artist is the one that pressed the shutter, therefore copyright belongs to him, regardless of whose equipment was being used.

I think I'll abstain from the vote as I can't make up my mind :twisted:

[slin100]

This question surfaces on Usenet periodically. While it's almost impossible to reach a consensus on Usenet, the preponderance of the expert-sounding opinion :D is that in the absence of any contract the person that actuates the shutter is the copyright holder.

One example I read about was in a studio environment where the photographer sets up everything for the shot but the assistant actually presses the button. Common sense would dictate that the photographer should own the copyright since every aspect of the captured image was set by the photographer, but it seems the law is clear that the assistant is the copyright owner. In these situations, apparently, it's wise for the photographer to have the assistant waive copyright to the image prior taking the shot.

The thing about copyright is that the holder doesn't have free license to use the image in any manner. If there are people in the image, then a model release may be required.

[IndyJeff]

can a person still sue us(photographer) if we use a picture (we took) with their face on a mag. advertisement, ect. without their knowledge or approval?

On a magazone cover in an editorial use, no worries. In an advertisment, call your lawyer and tell him to go ahead and order that new SUV for his wife. He will soon be able to afford it.


Now to the question at hand......if the guy asked if your buddy would take some pictures for him using his camera, this may fall under a "work for hire" field. Even tho no money changed hands an agreement was verbally agreed upon whereas your friend acted as a photographer for the guy in the stands using the guy's equipment. Even tho I voted for the photographer before reading the situation I believe that any copyright which might be assigned would be jointly owned, if the camera owner fessed up that he indeed is not the creator of the image.

Now a twist, there is a big crash. Your buddy is shooting for say AP. He turns the images in, explaining to the guy that he has to turn something in or he will get fired if they find out he was shooting with a fan's camera. Who is the photo credit given too? Your friend.

Another twist, let's say this was NASCAR and the guy takes the images and posts several on ebay selling them. NASCAR's private investigators, and yes they have them, find this and contact the guy telling him he can't sell those images without being licensed. He ignores their warnings and it ends up in court. Defendants in the case may very well be the guy selling the images, and if they know about your friend, him too because he took the pictures. Altho I do believe that your friend's part of this would be dropped as he had no prior knowledge of the intent to commercialize the images.


Best advice would be if your credentialed, don't take a fan's camera into your possession for the purpose of getting them better shots than they would be able to do on their own.
There are just too many variables to give a definitive answer to the original question that will fit all situations.

[DocFrankenstein]

Does the nascar writes a warning on the back of the tickets not to sell the pics or something? :?

I mean... you'd have to sign a contract of some sort agreeing not to sell the pictures...

[Bruce Hamilton]

Who owns the rights to a photo, the camera owner, or the person behind the camera...

Since I never loan my camera to anyone, it's a moot point. ;)

[Digital Prophet]

can a person still sue us(photographer) if we use a picture (we took) with their face on a mag. advertisement, ect. without their knowledge or approval?

On a magazone cover in an editorial use, no worries. In an advertisment, call your lawyer and tell him to go ahead and order that new SUV for his wife. He will soon be able to afford it.

Use of the image on a magazine cover, editorial (content of mag) or otherwise has to be in the context of editorial use. If the image is not related to an inside story (and why wouldn't be?) of an editorial nature then the image is advertising. In which case you would be liable for "Invasion of Privacy" if you couldn't produce a release.

I think that the ownership is clear on a legal basis. The photographer that shot the image owns the rights unless he expressly transfers them. However, the agreement COULD be construed as "work for hire". In which case the person who asked the photographer owns the shots. In which case the person could argue (possibly) that the exchange of value was the experience or rental fee of using the person's camera. If that were to fly in court then under the copyright laws the photographer has no claim to any rights.

Hey look at me, I read a book!

- Digital Prophet -

[Jesper]

Ahhh, but what if that someone else approaches the painter and says, "I'm kinda busy right now. Would you please paint that picture for me? Here, take my canvas, brushes and paint." Would the painter still own the painting at the end? I think it all depends on the contract or what was agreed.

The person who actually painted the painting would have the rights. Unless he explicitly agreed something else about the rights. It just seems logical to me that whoever made the work of art, owns the artistic rights.

But this is getting a bit hypothetical - ever heard a painter say something like "I'm kind of busy, you make the painting"? :roll: :)

What if the photographer sets up the model, the lighting, the camera, etc. and lets his assistant press the button? Is the photo made by the photographer or the assistant? (I would say the photographer!).

[IndyJeff]

No Doc there is no warning on the back of the ticket but, NASCAR owns all rights to all images from all their sanctioned events, participants, cars, equipment etc. If you take a shot from the stands and list it for sale on eBay I guarentee you will be getting an email from somebody warning you that you are infringing upon the rights of NASCAR, the driver, the car and the car owner.
Buy purchasing a ticket to a race you are entering into a contract, says so right on the back of the ticket in a way..."A spectator admitted by the use of the license this ticket represents"... but it is stated with a lawsuit in mind. If a car comes careening into the stands you can't sue them. A waste of ink is what that is tho.

DP I am not going to say it never happened but, a cover shot is almost guarenteed to be relevant to an inside story. The idea of the cover shot is to get you to buy it to read about that shot, right?

[Aylwin]

But this is getting a bit hypothetical - ever heard a painter say something like "I'm kind of busy, you make the painting"? :roll: :)
Agreed. It's getting hypothetical. I was just trying to use your analogy to describe the situation described at the beginning of this thread. :)

Interesting discussion though. Maybe we'll just blame all this on Rollie for bringing it up. :lol:

[rpmx]

Interesting discussion though. Maybe we'll just blame all this on Rollie for bringing it up. :lol:[/quote]

I see how you are, blame the rookie! :oops:

Actually, the reason for asking this, was because I was shooting an event last week, when this occurred, and have been bombarded by requests to purchase the images by the participants. I went to the event on Thursday, and found that there was not one photographer there,(not that I'm a photographer, but more of a person with a camera) so I went back on Friday and shot around 200 images. Now, Im a real rookie at this, and have never, ever sold an image. I have good friends the do sell alot of motorsports images, and I dont want to step on their toes, but no one was there. I dont even know how to charge for this, and feel guilty doing it. I know you professionals are going to think Im a moron, :shock: but its more of a personality issue, than anything. I guess in my mind, I dont feel right charging, and dont even know if my stuff is good enough to charge. By the response of the people involved, it seems like it is something that they would be willing to pay for, but Im not even set up to do this. I enjoy learning, and dont want to turn this into work. if you know what I mean. I just received an email from the west coast, wanting to publish 5 or 6 images, along with a story, if I could write 250-300 words, or if I didnt want to write it, they would still like to use my photos.

Back to the original topic, I know my partner got a crash shot that looked awesome thru the viewfinder, but the camera belonged to someone else, so that is where the gray area comes in as far as who has the rights to the image. My guess under these conditions, is that posession is 9/10th of the law, and I really dont care, as long as we get to see what he shot.

[mjordan]

It depends on what country. Although a lot of countries have signed the International Copyright Treaty, laws vary from country to country.

People are not the only thing that you might need a release from. Property is another. For instance, the Golden Gate Bridge and other famous landmarks are already protected under copyright by someone or some organization.

It also depends on what you are going to do with it. As pointed out, personal use, educational use, news or commercial use all mean something different.

And when it comes to who can do what, it's who has the most money and the best lawyers in a lot of cases. Most people can't afford to protect their copyright if they are infringed upon... unless you have the registered.

Mike

[Aylwin]

I vote for: sell your photos! Heck, if anyone thought my photos were worth paying for then that's what I'd do. I'm sure the pros here can help with you the details on how to go about it.

Just because you sell a few photos doesn't mean you have to turn this into a job. Consider yourself as an artist. You do what you want, when you want, at your own pace. If anyone wants to buy what you've created, why not? :)

[IndyJeff]

rpmx a couple of things in your last post sent up red flags to me.

I have good friends the do sell alot of motorsports images, and I dont want to step on their toes, but no one was there. I dont even know how to charge for this, and feel guilty doing it. I know you professionals are going to think Im a moron, but its more of a personality issue, than anything. I guess in my mind, I dont feel right charging, and dont even know if my stuff is good enough to charge.

First off if they want to BUY your photos, then sell them. If you give them a photo today, tomorrow they will expect another one. I have personally seen this in action. A guy shoots and gives away photos for a couple of months. All of a sudden one day he realizes that he is going to the track this weekend and it will cost him about $80 in out of pocket expense to give away the photos from two weeks ago. So he goes but this time he tells the riders that he wants $10 for an 8x10. Damn near everything he printed up came home with him. Was there anything wrong with this batch of photos? No, just now they cost instead of being free.
If you have some friends who are selling to these guys and you are giving away what they are charging for, well I will just say that your "friends" may not be real happy with the way you do business on their little corner of the world.

I enjoy learning, and dont want to turn this into work. if you know what I mean. I just received an email from the west coast, wanting to publish 5 or 6 images, along with a story, if I could write 250-300 words, or if I didnt want to write it, they would still like to use my photos.


Fine, that is great. Did they say anything about how much they are willing to pay for publishing your photos? Or are they doing you a favor by giving you a photo credit? Turn the tables on them and ask them in return for the photos can you have a 1/4 page ad in their magazine for a 3 month period? I am betting they will tell you that there is considerable expense in publishing a magazine and they can't afford to give away a source of revenue for free. So what are they asking you to do? 5 or 6 images could easily run into a 4 figure check based upon sizes and circulation of the mag.
Publishers, some not all, are always looking for a new fish. That is a guy who will go on an assignment, spend his own money on expenses and then turn around and submit photos without charging anything for them. As soon as this fish asks for some money to help cover these expenses, guess what? Yep, "thanks kid ahhh we will call you next time we need ya." they will then put out the hook, line and sinker and someone else will take the bait.

Now you can do whatever you want, they are YOUR photos. Just remember this...someday you may decide you would like to make some extra money shooting the races. How much will you be able to make if you are know as the guy who always has the freebies?
Ask a driver if you get some stickers made up 4x6's can you place them on his car? I am betting he really wants your stickers on there but it is going to cost you to do that.

[Digital Prophet]

DP I am not going to say it never happened but, a cover shot is almost guarenteed to be relevant to an inside story. The idea of the cover shot is to get you to buy it to read about that shot, right?

Oh I know. You are right, I mean why wouldn't it go with a story. But you just know that the one time I got published (someday) it would be for a pic I had no release for that had nothing to do with a story. And I would get sued. That is the kind of jokes God likes to play on me.

- Digital Prophet -

[rpmx]

Jeff, I Have thought of some of the issues you spoke of, and thank for explaining the other things I have not thought of. The photographers I spoke of earlier are shooting a different series than what I shot, although I have shot at the same venue many times before also. As I am in the infield at alot of these events, I am seeing alot of amateurs, like myself, with some disposable income that is being spent on camera gear that is capable of producing a shot on occasion for someone like me. My profession is not in photography, but I have a passion for the series, which has taken me from a fan in the stands, to taking shots in the infield with a P&S digital, mostly for internet use, to now a DSLR. Along that timeline, my knowledge has grown in all aspects of photography, but I am still very, very lacking in all aspects of this field, but I am getting better.This progression has taken me into a place that I dont really want to be, and I feel my only options are to A, quit, B,keep giving my stuff away, or C, start accepting money when offered. I dont want to quit, I dont really care about whether I give the stuff away or not, but what am I going to do with it otherwise, and I dont know what to do about the money aspect.