Who owns a photograph taken with my camera?

[Microcosm]

If someone is using my camera and lenses, but they composed the picture and the settings and took the shot, then who owns the photograph? I'm saying they own the picture, but I wanted a legitimate link to back my claim up as I strangely haven't been able to find anything. I feel like I'm missing something right in front of me, but thanks for your time finding the answer.

[BrinNutz]

Well, I would use this reasoning, which is probably totally wrong.

Did they pay to rent your equipment that YOU purchase and therefore own? If not, then I would say the images would be owned, no questions asked, by you since it was with your equipment and not rented from you, etc.

But, I'm not a lawyer, far from it. But that's my take.

[Microcosm]

Hm, fair enough when put that way. I guess I should expand my situation. I'm still learning a lot about photography and it's only a hobby, and something I like to do. My girlfriend is also into photography, but doesn't own a DSLR so she uses mine. I like a lot of the pictures she takes, but she refuses to post them to her flickr because she took them with my camera despite the fact that she set everything up. And now here I am trying to find something to convince her it's okay haha.

[tracknut]

I'm no lawyer either, but is it the photographer or the camera that makes the image? It seems there are many threads on this site suggesting that it's the photographer, and the camera is just a tool.

Let's say you owned some paintbrushes, and your girlfriend used them to paint the Mona Lisa....

Dave

[Microcosm]

Agreed completely. I like the analogy a lot too, I'll use that. Anyone have some specific legal site with the information on it?

[cory1848]

Many corporations own everything from the equipment to whatever is created on it. I do graphic design work and if I am using my works computers, they own everything I do on it, even if its personal work.

I would say in this case the person who owns the equipment owns everything that was created on it.

[gjl711]

It's the photographer who owns the copyright. Equipment is just equipment and is incapable of owning anything. If I were to write a book on a library computer, the library would not own my work even though the own the computer, I would. Same goes for a pic.

Those of us working for corporations, we signed our lives away when we got hired and usually in the paperwork you signed there will be something stating that the corp owns any idea you have while working even if you use your own equipment.

[mr_e]

Many corporations own everything from the equipment to whatever is created on it. I do graphic design work and if I am using my works computers, they own everything I do on it, even if its personal work.

I would say in this case the person who owns the equipment owns everything that was created on it.

You most likely signed something that explicitly stated that anything created on company time was property of the company, that's usually the case with larger corporations.

To answer the op's question, whoever takes (creates) the picture legally owns it

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#author

Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html), Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

/Also not a lawyer

[ANGUS]

If i paint a painting with your paint brushes, Who owns the painting i paint with your brushes? Same thing. she owns them.

[neilwood32]

I think the general rule is that unless you are being paid to capture the image (ie as full time employment or as a professional photographer), the person shooting is the owner of the images no matter what they shot with!

If you are shooting at work, they effectively own you and your skills for the time you are there. Anything you produce is theirs unless specifically agreed otherwise.

A professional photographer on the other hand is shooting specific shots for money. Even then, the shots belong to the photographer (unless its work for hire) who will sell them to the client (specific rights for their use, printing etc).

If you are not getting paid - they are yours no matter if you shoot with your camera or anyone elses!

[cory1848]

I think the general rule is that unless you are being paid to capture the image (ie as full time employment or as a professional photographer), the person shooting is the owner of the images no matter what they shot with!

If you are shooting at work, they effectively own you and your skills for the time you are there. Anything you produce is theirs unless specifically agreed otherwise.

A professional photographer on the other hand is shooting specific shots for money. Even then, the shots belong to the photographer (unless its work for hire) who will sell them to the client (specific rights for their use, printing etc).

If you are not getting paid - they are yours no matter if you shoot with your camera or anyone elses!

And how does one expect to get there images off of the CF card? and how does one prove they took the photo?

I am not disagreeing here, just playing devil advocate. I am sure this has come up with poporazzi, just wondering how this would play out.

[Maddog12]

I feel the photograph belongs to the photographer who takes the images.

[breal101]

Maybe she is just saying that so you will buy her a new camera. :):)

[ryant35]

Hm, fair enough when put that way. I guess I should expand my situation. I'm still learning a lot about photography and it's only a hobby, and something I like to do. My girlfriend is also into photography, but doesn't own a DSLR so she uses mine. I like a lot of the pictures she takes, but she refuses to post them to her flickr because she took them with my camera despite the fact that she set everything up. And now here I am trying to find something to convince her it's okay haha.

That would mean Sammy's Camera & Calumet Photo's rental departments own a lot of great photographs.

[cory1848]

That would mean Sammy's Camera & Calumet Photo's rental departments own a lot of great photographs.

A rental clause/contract would dismiss that.

[ryant35]

A rental clause/contract would dismiss that.

I've never actually read that, nor have a actually rented a body. Just lenses.

[StewartR]

That would mean Sammy's Camera & Calumet Photo's rental departments own a lot of great photographs.A rental clause/contract would dismiss that.I've never actually read that, nor have a actually rented a body. Just lenses.When we set up LensesForHire.co.uk, we discussed this with our lawyers. Their advice was that there is no need for such a clause, because ownership of the tools does not confer ownership of the works produced with those tools.

[ryant35]

When we set up LensesForHire.co.uk, we discussed this with our lawyers. Their advice was that there is no need for such a clause, because ownership of the tools does not confer ownership of the works produced with those tools.

Exactly. I was responding to the post I quoted about the guy's girlfriend not wanting to post her shots from his camera.

[superdiver]

when your girlfriend drives the car YOU own and YOU insure but she has an accident or ticket, does it go on your record or hers?

[ryant35]

when your girlfriend drives the car YOU own and YOU insure but she has an accident or ticket, does it go on your record or hers?

And if she gets pulled over the 10 kilos of cocaine in the truck is her responsibility.

And the accident goes on her driving record.

[mattograph]

I apprentice for a very good portrait photographer. When working on location, I set up the lights, backdrops, fix the ratios, grids, test the lights, shoot the test shots, and instruct the folks how to pose.

He pulls the trigger.

Although we have never discussed it, I always assumed that, if I trip the shutter, thats my work, and in absence of a contract to the contrary, that would become my work.

A good reference point for this would be someone who runs a large wedding business. When they employ additional shooters for receptions and other work, I am sure there is a contract passing ownership of all the images to the wedding photographer.

[S.Horton]

Good question.

What was the subject of the photograph?

What is the relationship between the person who took the shot and you?

[cory1848]

Comparing IP rights to cars and tickets is just a tad irrelevant.

So, I work at a large corporation. My friend who doesnt work here, comes in and visits me... I let him use my work machine and he designs a nice logo cause he is bored...

Company sees it and likes it a lot, they want to use it as there new company logo... Do they have to pay for it? Nope... it is already theirs as it was designed on their equipment. Even though there is no signed agreement in place...

So how does that work out with regards to photography? Anyone a lawyer here that can give "non legal" advice or is everyone just assuming and guessing?

[thekid24]

what if it is not your cf card but theirs? Does that come in to play?:p

[JWright]

My wife uses my equipment on occasion and when she does, I assign copyright to her because she made the images, even though I do the post-processing.

[Ralph Merlino]

I would say that gjl711 is right on the mark.

[mattograph]

Comparing IP rights to cars and tickets is just a tad irrelevant.

So, I work at a large corporation. My friend who doesnt work here, comes in and visits me... I let him use my work machine and he designs a nice logo cause he is bored...

Company sees it and likes it a lot, they want to use it as there new company logo... Do they have to pay for it? Nope... it is already theirs as it was designed on their equipment. Even though there is no signed agreement in place...



Not necessarily. There is no right or wrong answer in these situations. Say your friend was married to an attorney who could sue the corporation, and had deep enough pockets to go after them for it. They may keep the logo, but the idea that the artist would get zilch over a technicality is not the safest bet.

Now, if you gave the designer access to your company computer, I will bet you are looking for a job.........

[Microcosm]

Wow, lots of discussion here! I wasn't expecting that, but it's a good thing. There are so many different ways of interpreting this, and variable that could switch things up too. Thanks for the help, I'll try to use this to convince her she owns the photos.. But lots of good information in here regarding other situations as well.

[Mike R]

The camera is only a tool. It's her creativity and vision that created the shot.

[jaypie77]

I have dealt with just this situation and I can state for a fact that in the United States of America, unless otherwise agreed upon in a contract, the taker of the image is the owner of the image.

I know a photographer who makes all assistants sign a contract that any photos they take with his equipment while working for him are the property of the photographer. No contract, no transfer of ownership.

[mr_e]

For anyone interested you should take a read through the US Copyright Office's web site and FAQ

http://www.copyright.gov/

Specifically concerning who owns the copyright of a work
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#author

[alduin]

If she uses your brushes and paints on your canvas, does she now own your canvas?

[Zepher]

If she uses your brushes and paints on your canvas, does she now own your canvas?

That's not really a relevant analogy.

how about if she uses her own memory cards with your camera?

[sfaust]

It's all covered in the US Copyright law regarding authorship and copyright ownership. It doesn't matter who owns the equipment, handles, sets up, borrows, or rents equipment. He who takes the picture the moment it was created owns the copyright, unless there is a written agreement stating otherwise (transfer, employment contract, work for hire, etc).

A rental clause/contract would dismiss that.

I've rented a lot of equipment, and read a lot of contracts because of that, but never have I seen one that had anything about copyright ownership in it. I can't imagine what it would say, or why.

[bieber]

How has no one realized how much of a non-issue this is? Given that there's no conflict of interest whatsoever, if it really bothers you, just write out a piece of paper that assigns copyright for any work she makes with your camera to her. It's not like the two of you are fighting over the copyright, and the law's not going to try and force someone who doesn't want to to hold copyright, regardless of who gets it initially...

[sfaust]

Multiple people have noted its a non-issue! Nothing needs to be done, the photographer owns the copyright. Its been pointed out two or three times now, even one with a very clear quote from the copyright laws.

The thread just assumed a life on its own with colorful analogies of paint brushes, cars, cocaine, and rental contracts ;)

[Stocky]

careful sfaust: I think its forum blasphemy to even think that people would read the posts before replying in a thread.

[bieber]

Multiple people have noted its a non-issue! Nothing needs to be done, the photographer owns the copyright. Its been pointed out two or three times now, even one with a very clear quote from the copyright laws.

The thread just assumed a life on its own with colorful analogies of paint brushes, cars, cocaine, and rental contracts ;)

careful sfaust: I think its forum blasphemy to even think that people would read the posts before replying in a thread.
Heh, sorry. I've been gone for a while and came back to a three page thread...and the first skim through definitely didn't seem to justify reading more in depth ;)

[primoz]

Common sense tells that copyright is owned by artist not owner of equipment. But we live in world, where common sense doesn't always work.
As someone already mentioned.... some companies own all work created with their equipment. Newspapers and photo agencies normally own all work created with their equipment and on their time. But this is one thing, your girlfriend borrowing your equipment is another thing. In your case, she owns copyright, even if she took photos with your cameras. But in your world common sense can easily be used. Relationship between two people, especially your kind of relationship is something completely different then world of big agencies and big money. So I wouldn't worry too much about copyright thing :)

[ANGUS]

Hope the OP doesnt mind me asking but,
If i set up a photo (Apeture, Shutter Speed, ISO, Composition etc) on a tripod then i go get in the shot if someone else takes the shot do i still own it?

[S.Horton]

careful sfaust: I think its forum blasphemy to even think that people would read the posts before replying in a thread.

Great point.

;):D:rolleyes::cool:

[sfaust]

Some newspapers do indeed own the rigts because they have the photographers working for them sign a contract stating so. Without the contract, they wouldn't own them except in a few narrow circumstances. It really comes back to the point that a written agreement is needed in order to transfer the copyright to someone else.

[neilwood32]

Not sure if im correct or not but i would guess that affiliated "Press" photographers in general are on "work for hire" contracts which will state that all photographs obtained by the photographer in the course of his work belong to the client (newspaper, magazine etc)

[jrobert]

Plausibly, each of you could claim some degree of ownership. Since it sounds like you've renounced your (potential) claim, what still stands in her way?

[mr_e]

Work for hire is defined as

1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work (only if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire):

a) as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
b) as a translation
c) as a supplementary work
d) as a compilation
e) as an instructional text
f) as a test
g) as answer material for a test
h) or as an atlas


So (in general) the only time someone else can own the copyright to your photo without a contract is if you're an employee and taking photos is within the scope of your employment.

[digirebelva]

[quote=cory1848;5650812]Comparing IP rights to cars and tickets is just a tad irrelevant.

So, I work at a large corporation. My friend who doesnt work here, comes in and visits me... I let him use my work machine and he designs a nice logo cause he is bored...

Company sees it and likes it a lot, they want to use it as there new company logo... Do they have to pay for it? Nope... it is already theirs as it was designed on their equipment. Even though there is no signed agreement in place.../quote]


Not necessarily, since said friend is not an employee of the company, and with no signed contract stating ownership of said work with friend, a lawyer could possibly win that one...Interesting thought though....would love to hear a lawers take on that one..

[Kadath]

If a grafitti artist spraypaints my building do I own that work of art or does he? =p

[cory1848]

If a grafitti artist spraypaints my building do I own that work of art or does he? =p

Ask that to the judge at the trial of the artist that got arrested for criminal mischief, vandalism and trespassing...

[Bill Roberts]

Who owns a photograph taken with my camera?

I would have thought the photographer does. But common sense and the law aren't necessarily the same thing! :lol:

cheers

[tgara]

If a grafitti artist spraypaints my building do I own that work of art or does he? =p

This is analogous to a mural painted on the side of a building. Turns out, under the law, the grafitti artist owns the work of art. Now the question becomes: Can the building owner paint over (e.g., destroy) the artwork on his wall when that artwork is owned by the grafitti artist? Some courts say no.

The copyright owner of the photograph is the person who created the EXPRESSION that is captured on the photograph. That means the copyright owner is the person who set up the camera exposure, camera angle, lighting, positioning the subject, etc. These are factors that go into the EXPRESSION (e.g., creative elements) that is captured. After that is done, it is irrelevant who actually pushed the shutter button or who owned the equipment because those factors do not contribute to the EXPRESSION captured in the photograph. The same goes to who owns the CF cards, etc.

Regarding employees who take photos, most businesses will have them sign a contract whereby the assign all copyright ownership of their work to their employers.

Full disclosure: I am an IP attorney.

[mattograph]

If a grafitti artist spraypaints my building do I own that work of art or does he? =p

You own the canvas. Charge him rent. Call it an exhibition.

[johnms88]

Many corporations own everything from the equipment to whatever is created on it. I do graphic design work and if I am using my works computers, they own everything I do on it, even if its personal work.

I would say in this case the person who owns the equipment owns everything that was created on it.

This is different. You are being paid by them, I don't think it has anything to do with who's equipment is being used. I highly doubt if you were doing their work on your laptop that you would own the work.

[Microcosm]

Plausibly, each of you could claim some degree of ownership. Since it sounds like you've renounced your (potential) claim, what still stands in her way?
Nothing really. This was more of an innocent question because I was wondering rather than me being in some intense legal battle. People have provided a great amount of interesting information though, which could also hopefully educate someone who actually needs to get the rights to their photo.

[digirebelva]

This is different. You are being paid by them, I don't think it has anything to do with who's equipment is being used. I highly doubt if you were doing their work on your laptop that you would own the work.

have you read some of those employment contracts..I have seen some that basically state that very thing...Not sure how it would hold up in court though

[sfaust]

have you read some of those employment contracts..I have seen some that basically state that very thing...Not sure how it would hold up in court though

It actually holds up very well.

[digirebelva]

It actually holds you very well.

I know of a case where the employer tried that tatic and lost..Software that was written on the users home computer, on their time. The company tried to say it belonged to them for various reasons...dont know all of the specifics and this was a number of years ago..so the contract probably had a lot of holes in it.

[sfaust]

You are probably right. When I responded, I was thinking the employees laptop on company time, not his laptop and on his own time. His own computer on his own time is one thing, and I agree it could be hard to enforce. But then again, it all depends on how the contract is written.

If a company offered someone money in exchange for any software they develop at any time, on any equipment, for any purpose related to the companies business, and the guy signs that contract and accepts the money in exchange for that agreement, I can see that having a very good chance of being enforceable. After all it was the agreement presented between the two parties, they both accepted the terms and formalized it in a written contract. Unless there are laws that prohibit it, or its written so badly there are loopholes, it seems reasonable to expect it to stand up in court.

If the terms aren't acceptable to the employee, he doesn't have to sign it or accept employment there. Unfortunately, companies grab everything they can, and employees don't always read the contracts they sign when being hired.

[cory1848]

Just a thought, Colleges and Universities have the same clause...anything you create in the labs of using university property becomes property of the college or university...Now the students are not getting paid...so how does that play out?

[mattograph]

Just a thought, Colleges and Universities have the same clause...anything you create in the labs of using university property becomes property of the college or university...Now the students are not getting paid...so how does that play out?

Thats a good point.

[sfaust]

My guess is that they signed away the rights in exchange for using the universities resources for their work. I think it gets back the written agreement. If they both sign a piece of paper agreeing to an arrangement, unless its illegal somehow, or has loopholes to allow someone to wiggle out, I can't see why it wouldn't be binding.

If I wrote up an agreement to sell a car to a person for $10K, and the agreements says that he will immediately sell it back to me in the same condition for $500, we both sign it, we both fully understand all parameters of the agreement, assuming no loopholes were left, he's kind of on the hook to sell it back no matter how stupid or illogical it may be.

We could argue all sorts of scenarios, but unless we know whats contained in the agreement both parties signed, and under what conditions they signed it, none of us will be 100% correct. It would all be speculation.

[zacker]

what about the cop who took photos of 9/11 with his own camera but took them while on duty... the city ended up owning them cause he was on city time when they were taken. Sooooo..your GF ownes them cause if you try to say different, she will cut you off indefinetly.. ya cant argue with women, you should know that!

[sfaust]

Sooooo..your GF ownes them cause if you try to say different, she will cut you off indefinetly.. ya cant argue with women, you should know that!

I hate how that happens. The more you think with the little head, they more they can influence you. Just doesn't seem right now does it ;)

[caroleigh]

If someone is using my camera and lenses, but they composed the picture and the settings and took the shot, then who owns the photograph? I'm saying they own the picture, but I wanted a legitimate link to back my claim up as I strangely haven't been able to find anything. I feel like I'm missing something right in front of me, but thanks for your time finding the answer.

I'm no lawyer, however , I dont think it matters what or whos equipment you use, I would imagine if you take the photo you hold copyright. Thats like saying you give an artist a piece of paper to use and because you gave them the paper that makes their work now yours?

[tgara]

I'm no lawyer, however , I dont think it matters what or whos equipment you use, I would imagine if you take the photo you hold copyright. Thats like saying you give an artist a piece of paper to use and because you gave them the paper that makes their work now yours?

This is essentially correct, as I posted above. The person who created the expression in the work is the copyright owner. Expression in our photographic world would be the creative elements, such as choice of subject, exposure settings, lighting settings, camera angle, etc. Now suppose Person A dials in all those parameters, but Person B pushes the shutter. Who owns the copyright of the image? Person A. Person B owns nothing.

[johnms88]

If you rent a camera, does all the photos become copyright of the owner of the company?

No

[sfaust]

If you rent a camera, does all the photos become copyright of the owner of the company?

No

Depends.

Yes, if there is a contract that specifically states the photographer will transfer copyright ownership from himself to the company.

No, if there is no contact that specifically states the photographer will transfer copyright ownership from himself to the company.

What does the paperwork the employee signed when hired say? (assumes the employee works for 'company', and you are not referring to 'company' as being the rental company. But either way....

Unless written otherwise and signed by both parties (copyright transfer, employment contract, intellectual propertt agreement, etc), tgara already summed it up quite well and accurately based on his experience as an IP attorney (Im taking his word for it here, why shouldn't I ;) ), in that the creator of the work owns the copyright regardless of who trips the shutter, owns the equipment, who he is employed by (some governmental exceptions), etc. His advice also matches everything I've heard from other IP attorneys, summaries from organizations like APA, ASMP, PPA, articles and books regarding photography, IP, and copyright laws, and my own interpretation from reading up on the copyright laws. It's the sae drum the entire industry is beating to.

So it would be a disservice to lead the readers down an incorrect path with contrary advice, unless accompanied by some references from those knowledgeable in the industry, another IP attorneys viewpoint, or excerpts from the copyright laws to back it up. An uncle who is a dog groomer, who had is boss tell him his boss owned the picture he took of a dog, just because the groomer worked for him doesn't really trump copyright law ;)

Seriously, the question has been answered multiple times now by an IP attorney, and excerpts from the copyright law itself. Why is the carousel still spinning when the only passenger is a dead horse? ;) ;)