Picture Ownership Question

[aebrown]

I just had a quick question about taking a picture (and don't say you just push the shutter button down :D). Well, I was at the zoo today, and was just randomly shooting pictures of my niece just to joke around with her, and she ended up deleting some of the pictures I had taken of her. No big deal beings they were nothing special, but it brought up an interesting point to me. So once I take a picture, do I essentially own it while still on the memory card? Would it be like destruction of property when someone deletes my pictures? Or like violation of some type copyright? Just curious about how it works with ownership and rights of the image while its still on the camera. Thanks guys, and sorry I would have looked this up, but I had no idea what to start searching for...

[ilantis]

Your image is technically your copyright as soon as it is in some sort of "tangible form" so residing on the memory card satisfies this requirement.

The second half of your post brings up some interesting points though. I can imagine if you were taking pictures of something that you aren't allowed to you would have a hard time arguing your case. Similarly, if you are taking pictures of people without consent and releases this wouldn't fly too well either.

Perhaps others will chime in with some more examples/anecdotes.

[watchtherocks]

Once you take a picture you own it, as long as you don't live in France, in which case the subject owns it.
The only way someone can legally get you to delete your pictures is with a court order.

[MJPhotos24]

Yup, once it's created (taken) you own the copyright and the only way they can take your equipment or delete images is with a court order. That is an interesting question, you can recover images deleted by accident sometimes, if someone came up and just deleted your card to be a jerk I would think you could do something about it. I'd lose a lot of money if someone did that to me, thousands of dollars potentially and would do everything in my power to make sure that person paid for the damages to my income.

[Box Brownie]

Just as an aside, we are fortunate in that Canon uses CF cards because even if formated a recovery program can 'get them back' provided the card has not been written to again. The reason I say that is because the xD cards in a Fuji camera if formated they are gone forever. I tried to help a colleague who had inadvertantly formated their card and I said no problem I will retrieve them ~ I tried a variety of recovery programs and zilch!

Are the current generation of SD cards recoverable from a format???

[aebrown]

Thanks for the info guys! I'll consider slapping a law suit on my niece now lol.
Next question though (sorry to drag this on). I haven't done this, but I know friends who do. Let's say you're downtown, just taking pictures of people who look interesting. And "BAM!" you find a classic old man with a pipe in his mouth and smoke fwirling around (yes, I create my own words)--which, if you can imagine, could make a nice classic black and white image. I take the picture, it is, therefore, my property. Next step: if I want to publish/turn a profit off of this image, I would have to get written consent, correct? Or not so much? And if I don't get this consent then the most I can really do is gawk at how great the image is and hopefully frame it in my house? Again, sorry if this has already been asked...

[aebrown]

Really? Do tell where I can recover my images!

[FlyingPhotog]

Thanks for the info guys! I'll consider slapping a law suit on my niece now lol.
Next question though (sorry to drag this on). I haven't done this, but I know friends who do. Let's say you're downtown, just taking pictures of people who look interesting. And "BAM!" you find a classic old man with a pipe in his mouth and smoke fwirling around (yes, I create my own words)--which, if you can imagine, could make a nice classic black and white image. I take the picture, it is, therefore, my property. Next step: if I want to publish/turn a profit off of this image, I would have to get written consent, correct? Or not so much? And if I don't get this consent then the most I can really do is gawk at how great the image is and hopefully frame it in my house? Again, sorry if this has already been asked...

AFAIK, you are correct. In order to profit from someones likeness, you'd need a signed release.

[egordon99]

I'm not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV (but I am a People's Court fan), but I believe if you sell a print of the "old man and a pipe" as fine art (framed all nice and stuff for Joe Schmoe to hang in their home), you're fine even without a release. If you sell the picture to "Joe's Pipe Store" to use in their new advertising campaign, you'd need a model release.

[Dennis_Hammer]

egordon99 you are correct, at least as I understand it (disclaimer insert at the end of last statement to avoid having to engage in an argument/discussion I have no interest in participating in)

[cory1848]

Hopefully I am not hijacking this thread and I apologize if I am, but relating this to wedding photography, I see a lot of photogs offering "ownership" of images to their clients after the wedding. I was under the impression that you give licensing to your clients and the ownership (copyright) remains with the photog. Is that correct? Are these photogs using the wrong terminology when explaining this?

[egordon99]

Cory -If the photogs were SMART, they would offer a limited personal license to print/share/whatever the photographs, but they should not offer ownership under any circumstances.

I'd have to see the exact wording on the contract, but if "ownership" is on there, they are giving away the farm.

I give my clients a license to print photos for their personal use (and to share with friends/family), but I specify that the copyright remains with me.

[cory1848]

Cory -If the photogs were SMART, they would offer a limited personal license to print/share/whatever the photographs, but they should not offer ownership under any circumstances.

I'd have to see the exact wording on the contract, but if "ownership" is on there, they are giving away the farm.

I give my clients a license to print photos for their personal use (and to share with friends/family), but I specify that the copyright remains with me.

Thanks, That is what I thought, but I am seeing it more and more and I have seen inquiries from couple shopping for photogs that they want ownership of the photos. Although I think they think that ownership means printing rights...

[PhotosGuy]

The Photographer’s Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHTS - USA, UK, & Australia (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide)

What Can I Photograph? (http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html) By Andrew Hudson

Photographers Becoming Security Concerns (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705698)

[jblaschke]

Next step: if I want to publish/turn a profit off of this image, I would have to get written consent, correct? Or not so much? And if I don't get this consent then the most I can really do is gawk at how great the image is and hopefully frame it in my house? Again, sorry if this has already been asked...

Under mass media law, people in public areas are fair game. You own the copyright straight out, and can sell your images however and wherever you want. You'd be selling the image/photo/print, to which you hold copyright. This is how the paparazzi make their living. HOWEVER, if say an ad agency wanted to buy a great picture you'd taken of a cute teenaged couple to use in an anti-STD campaign, they'd have to get permission from the subjects to use their likeness in the campaign. They'd still have to license the copyright from you.

As long as the only transaction is for the image, you're covered. Once that image is applied to something beyond itself, it starts getting complicated.

[jblaschke]

Thanks, That is what I thought, but I am seeing it more and more and I have seen inquiries from couple shopping for photogs that they want ownership of the photos. Although I think they think that ownership means printing rights...

Yeah. The vast majority of the public don't know the difference between copyright, trademark or other forms of intellectual property ownership. Most would be more than happy with a limited form of reprint license.