A (light hearted) question of ownership

[neil_r]

There is a strange story behind this picture. I was in Nuneaton my friend was in Sussex. He had his 1D MkII, 600mm L and 2x Tcon set up in his garden. I gave him all the settings over the phone, he took the pic, he mailed me the RAW and I did the post processing. So who’s picture is it ?

(he is a very good friend so there will be no lawyers fees involved :D )

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/pics/moon.jpg

[belmondo]

Did you get a model release signed?

[RTMiller]

...he took the pic...
I think you know the answer ;)
Next time the moon comes up take a picture yourself, then you'll both own one.

[Loki1117]

In all seriousness, it sounds as though this falls under an Art Director / Employee relationship. You giving the direction technically own the image. Since it doesn't sound like you have paid him as an employee I would have to say that until payment for his services are are offered he should hold the image "hostage." :)

[Longwatcher]

I would be of the opinion that it is his picture for copyright purposes. Unless you asked him specifically to take the picture.

If he asked what the setting were because he was going to take the picture anyway, then it should be his (you just provided free advice to him and offered to edit). If you asked him to take it, then you commisioned him to take it under you desired conditions and it gets much fuzzy, but I would lean in your favor at that point as he mailed it to you for editing.

The key point on the original was who's idea was that the picture was to be taken. Unless something exists to prove otherwise I suspect any court would side with him.

Now as for compensation from the final product (versus original). He can't use your edited version without providing compensation because the final product is a joint effort at that point. He could however go back and edit his picture adn leave you out.

At least that is how I see it.

Nice picture BTW.

[Robert_Lay]

Was there any contract (verbal, written, or implied regarding what it was that you each were to do when he gave it to you, and if so was their mutual benefit (in other words, according to that contract do each of you receive something tangible in the way of benefit)?

[rdenney]

Was there any contract (verbal, written, or implied regarding what it was that you each were to do when he gave it to you, and if so was their mutual benefit (in other words, according to that contract do each of you receive something tangible in the way of benefit)?

Yes, copyright can only be assigned in writing. And a "work for hire" can only be such if there is an established employment relationship or a contract defining it in force. Contracts can be verbal, of course.

In this case, the guy who stood in the cold and dark and pushed the button without shaking the camera is the guy who gets the credit, even if he got a how-to over the phone or out of a book.

Rick "who knows 'how' to take lots of pictures other people have taken" Denney

[neil_r]

Thanks for your input guys, I am sure that you all realise this was just a bit of fun. The guy who “took the picture” is Adrian who also posts on here. He is possibly my oldest and best friend and trust me we have done far worse things to fall out over and never have. I just thought it was an interesting point to debate. As to me taking my own version………… like I can afford an EF 600mm f/4.0L IS USM :evil:

Pip pip

N

[davepgh1]

You may not be able to afford one but you know someone who can. Your best of friends, would he lend you one?

[RockOne]

Not sure who owns it, but its an increidble shot.

[nation]

Neil has requested the photo be taken. Neil has given all the settings for the photo. Neil has performed all the processing. His friend has only framed and shot. I can't see the photo as being anything other than Neil's property. How good the end photo is comes from the technical side of taking and processing the shot not merely pressing the shutter release.

[Steve Parr]

Neil has requested the photo be taken. Neil has given all the settings for the photo. Neil has performed all the processing. His friend has only framed and shot. I can't see the photo as being anything other than Neil's property. How good the end photo is comes from the technical side of taking and processing the shot not merely pressing the shutter release.

Neil, then, probably should've just taken the shot himself. The camera used wasn't Neil's, nor was the card that was in the camera that the image is stored on.

I had been trying to get a decent moonshot for a long time. When I finally did, it was the result of using the same settings I saw listed in a post here on POTN.

Whose picture did I take?

Steve

[neil_r]

This is fun :D:D:D:D

Belmondo got it right untill we get the moon to sign the model release, there is nothing we can do with it anyway ;)

N

[zopi]

You should get mooned. <G>

[PhotosGuy]

Neil has requested the photo be taken. Neil has given all the settings for the photo. Neil has performed all the processing. His friend has only framed and shot. I can't see the photo as being anything other than Neil's property. How good the end photo is comes from the technical side of taking and processing the shot not merely pressing the shutter release. That sounds like a possible "Work for hire" situation to me. Neil owns the rights to the shot.

[RTMiller]

That sounds like a possible "Work for hire" situation to me. Neil owns the rights to the shot.
Yeah, maybe so.
Neil, how much did you pay him?:D

[subtle_spectre]

Adrian "owns" the image.

SEC, JD Indiana Atty # --139-64

[guitarman]

When two people sit down and write a song together, one may write the lyrics and one the music. They would both own it. Why in this case would ownership not be both?

[PhotosGuy]

For one thing, case law as "Subtle" said above.
For another, some people make food for hire. Others eat it. Who owns it? :D

[neil_r]

Adrian "owns" the image.

SEC, JD Indiana Atty # --139-64
Now we may be close but we have yet to adopt your legal system (we could not afford it ;))

N

[CyberDyneSystems]

I forget the gents name.. but there was a very famous early photographer.. who never touched the camera.

He made scenes.. posed people,. arranged the studioor site like a movie set... and directed the phtographer like a director deos with a cinematographer...

The photos were of course his... not the person operating the cameras. No one is likely to know the name of the people he employed to operate the machinery at this point in time...

So... "if"there had been an actual hire.. then the Shopt wpuld definitely be Neil's

[RTMiller]

So... "if"there had been an actual hire...
I agree with you CDS but I don't believe that any 'hiring' took place. If Neil gave his friend money for this shoot, I'm sure he would have mentioned that in his original post.

I like where I think PhotosGuy was going with this...
...some people make food for hire. Others eat it. Who owns it? :D

I call a friend on the phone. My friend reads me his recipe for baked ziti. I don't care what anyone says, it's my dinner!:mad: But I'm a nice guy so I would probably invite him over.:D

[Adrian]

Guys,


Here is a photo of Neil taken by me at my house this summer.

Another question?

I took the photo, he is wearing my swimming trunks, lying on my towel.

Does this mean that I now own the photo, neil or Both?

What would mrs neil say? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Could this be joint ownership? :p or should we have a duel to decide the final outcome sort of "to the victor, the spoils!"

Thanks to all who have taken part in this debate?

[CyberPet]

I think you guys should file for joint custody for that moon shot (which is spectacular!) :D

[subtle_spectre]

Now we may be close but we have yet to adopt your legal system (we could not afford it ;))

N

Like some many other facets of "here", we borrowed the bulk of our legal system from GB. :D Or UK or whatever is the proper term...sorry.

[neil_r]

That is it, I demand that Adrian be banned (or at least severely reprimanded). He has flagrantly disregarded the rules of this forum by posting a very “Not Work Safe” picture somewhere other than the “Glamour & Nude” forum where that picture obviously belongs.

I am awaiting the call from charlesu as I type

N

ps Mrs Neil says you can keep him!

[Adrian]

That is it, I demand that Adrian be banned (or at least severely reprimanded). He has flagrantly disregarded the rules of this forum by posting a very “Not Work Safe” picture somewhere other than the “Glamour & Nude” forum where that picture obviously belongs.


Just for the sake of curiosity, if there were two seperate forums, which one would you have prefered to be in? The Glamour or the Nude? :p

[Mannytkd]

Hi neil_r,

I'm sure it is a bit of fun. You all know who Martin Images is by now, well we joke all the time about fees but mostly from him because sometimes he pops around for a cuppa and gives me first class tips on my mono pics......;)

[kenyc]

Did you get a model release signed?

That would be a property release, wouldn't it? :lol:

KAC

[Adrian]

That would be a property release, wouldn't it? :lol:

KAC

Isn't property by definition "that which is belonging to someone"?

Who owns the moon?

I appreciate that certain individuals have been purchasing bits of the moon, are they really entitled to sell it .... hmmm

More food for thought! :lol:

[Radtech1]

Adrian (assuming that is who is in Sussex) owns the photo. The deciding piece of information is this:

He had his 1D MkII, 600mm L and 2x Tcon set up...

Neil could best be described as a technical consultant first and as a tecnician later, during the post processing.

Someone in the thread stated that Neil requested that the photo be taken, and therefor should own it. That Neil made such a request is not an assumption that can be made based on what Neil himself said.

Rad

[J-Guy]

I'd say that was a collabrative effort between friends that wouldn't be nearly as spectacular had the attempt been made by just one of you working alone. :)

Its a partnership and joint ownership, if that satisfies you both. :)